![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1. Fairlies
(Im not sure of the difference between a Fairlie and a Mallett, but generally for the Ffestiniog Railway atleast they were 0-4-4-0s.
2. Garratts
I would tend to use the following for Garratts: 2-6-0+0-6-2
The list here, as well as the "Whyte notation" box in articles on individual wheel arrangements, are missing 2-6-8-0. This arrangement is notable for being an articulated with mismatched sets of drivers. SpaceCaptain 00:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That template was what I was talking about - couldn't think of the word. Thanks for adding it! SpaceCaptain 23:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why do we need a separate article for every layout? Most of them contain no more information than their entry in this list. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 20:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking of ones like 2-8-8-8-4, of which only one example was ever built, or 2-8-8-8-2, with three examples of a single model. Those seem kind of acceptable because they're the only articles talking about the locomotives of that type, but 4-4-6-4 and 4-6-4-4 are more blatant examples because each of their respective locomotive classes already have articles of their own. Why do we need a separate article for the wheel layout used by a single locomotive? The issue isn't having articles on ones that are widespread or famous, but on having stubby little articles with no possibility for growth except through duplication of the locomotive article. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 20:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Another example,
4-14-4 is almost entirely about the locomotive, rather than about the wheel configuration. Wouldn't it be better off under the name of the locomotive?
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy)
21:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
What I don't see is why data that's about the development and use of the locomotive should be in an article under the name of the layout, rather than under the article of the locomotive. There is no article for Matt H. Shay or AA20-1, but it seems logical to have one, rather than one titled after the layout of its wheels. It's a specific feature of the design, rather than the design itself. We could write articles about all sorts of features that follow specific patterns, but when there's not much to be said for the feature, we don't need a separate article for it. The only thing exclusively about the wheel layout in 4-14-4 is the first paragraph, which is just an expansion of 4-14-4 into words. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, an 0-3-0! Four monorail steam locomotives were built to this wheel arrangement, and one is still extant in India. This is not a joke or an attempt at vandalism, it is true! Mjroots ( talk) 14:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Since another editor tagged this article as lacking in citations, I've spent some time to find and add citations for the majority of the types listed in this article (and copied many of them down to the individual type articles as appropriate as well). There are still more types and more statements in the description area that also need citations, but as it is now more than 50% cited, I've removed the {{ citations needed}} template. Specific statements in this article that need citations should be noted with {{ fact}} from this point on. Slambo (Speak) 20:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
0-4-6 and 0-8-6 needed, these were articulated Engerth locomotives. Mjroots ( talk) 06:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In the Biography section, how can the 1913 edition of a book know that a man died in 1941? Just curious. Looks like it was added as of this edit. - Denimadept ( talk) 19:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
if a tank engine, with a small bin for coal and tanks for water, is able to work and is, say, 0-4-0 why is any engine that has no coal bin or tank, and could never work alone, not noted as a 4-6-2/6 for the leading wheels, driving wheels, trailing wheels, and the tender wheels without which it could not run ? Dave Rave ( talk) 01:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Please double-check the following links and entries in the table of this article:
Please do not remove this hoax-warning from this talk page, until this issue has been completely resolved! -- NearEMPTiness ( talk) 12:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi
Mindfrieze. I notice you added a column to the table in
Whyte notation to show the number of units produced; the actual number for limited production types or a ballpark figure forWo high-volume types. Your totals are incomplete, however, since it only shows the data in respect of locomotives produced in the USA for domestic use and export. What about the locomotives produced in the rest of the world?
May I suggest you rather add this info to the wheel arrangement articles themselves, as a paragraph at the end of the "United States of America" section in each article. The production figures may already be included in some of these articles, but then you can at least double-check the data for accuracy in the process and maybe add American-Rails.com as an additional reference.
André Kritzinger (
talk)
21:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
For locomotive type names, you need to give the origin of each name. For example, the merger of which two railroads is commemorated in Consolidation? Who's Jenny Lind? Who's Jervis? The latter are well-known persons.
Until you undertake that effort, at least hyperlink names in the table which are simple entities having an article in Wikipedia. This would be very easy to do. Hyperlink to the articles on Jenny Lind, John Bloomfield Jervis, etc. Ditto Mastodon, Mikado, Mohawk, etc.; and even place names like Boston, Bulgaria, etc.
The next step is, once an article on a locomotive type has been written, then hyperlink to it, not the article on the entity of which the locomotive is the namesake. This has already been done with e.g. Crampton, which is linked to the article on the Crampton-type locomotive, not the man Crampton. (The article itself of course provides a link to him.)
On the other hand, with types having more generic names, like Northern, until an article is written about the type, likely no hyperlink is meaningful.
Jimlue ( talk) 20:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I have never seen the 2-2-2 called anything but the "Patentee type", and that's not some obscure thing I dredged up in some old book. I started reading about locomotives like ten years ago and I have come across mention of the "Patentee type" numerous times, I considered that one of the better known and more prominent types in early locomotives. Never once seen reference to a "2-2-2 Single" until now. That's like listing the 4-6-2 as the "St. Paul Type". Yes, that term was probably used by someone at some point, but almost everyone knows that type as the Pacific now. Idumea47b ( talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I love the way the wheels are shown, and with this proposal, we will keep them. We can just add images alongside them. Example, for the 0-10-0, we can add a picture of an 0-10-0 underneath the wheel design like so.
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1. Fairlies
(Im not sure of the difference between a Fairlie and a Mallett, but generally for the Ffestiniog Railway atleast they were 0-4-4-0s.
2. Garratts
I would tend to use the following for Garratts: 2-6-0+0-6-2
The list here, as well as the "Whyte notation" box in articles on individual wheel arrangements, are missing 2-6-8-0. This arrangement is notable for being an articulated with mismatched sets of drivers. SpaceCaptain 00:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That template was what I was talking about - couldn't think of the word. Thanks for adding it! SpaceCaptain 23:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why do we need a separate article for every layout? Most of them contain no more information than their entry in this list. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 20:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking of ones like 2-8-8-8-4, of which only one example was ever built, or 2-8-8-8-2, with three examples of a single model. Those seem kind of acceptable because they're the only articles talking about the locomotives of that type, but 4-4-6-4 and 4-6-4-4 are more blatant examples because each of their respective locomotive classes already have articles of their own. Why do we need a separate article for the wheel layout used by a single locomotive? The issue isn't having articles on ones that are widespread or famous, but on having stubby little articles with no possibility for growth except through duplication of the locomotive article. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 20:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Another example,
4-14-4 is almost entirely about the locomotive, rather than about the wheel configuration. Wouldn't it be better off under the name of the locomotive?
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy)
21:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
What I don't see is why data that's about the development and use of the locomotive should be in an article under the name of the layout, rather than under the article of the locomotive. There is no article for Matt H. Shay or AA20-1, but it seems logical to have one, rather than one titled after the layout of its wheels. It's a specific feature of the design, rather than the design itself. We could write articles about all sorts of features that follow specific patterns, but when there's not much to be said for the feature, we don't need a separate article for it. The only thing exclusively about the wheel layout in 4-14-4 is the first paragraph, which is just an expansion of 4-14-4 into words. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, an 0-3-0! Four monorail steam locomotives were built to this wheel arrangement, and one is still extant in India. This is not a joke or an attempt at vandalism, it is true! Mjroots ( talk) 14:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Since another editor tagged this article as lacking in citations, I've spent some time to find and add citations for the majority of the types listed in this article (and copied many of them down to the individual type articles as appropriate as well). There are still more types and more statements in the description area that also need citations, but as it is now more than 50% cited, I've removed the {{ citations needed}} template. Specific statements in this article that need citations should be noted with {{ fact}} from this point on. Slambo (Speak) 20:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
0-4-6 and 0-8-6 needed, these were articulated Engerth locomotives. Mjroots ( talk) 06:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In the Biography section, how can the 1913 edition of a book know that a man died in 1941? Just curious. Looks like it was added as of this edit. - Denimadept ( talk) 19:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
if a tank engine, with a small bin for coal and tanks for water, is able to work and is, say, 0-4-0 why is any engine that has no coal bin or tank, and could never work alone, not noted as a 4-6-2/6 for the leading wheels, driving wheels, trailing wheels, and the tender wheels without which it could not run ? Dave Rave ( talk) 01:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Please double-check the following links and entries in the table of this article:
Please do not remove this hoax-warning from this talk page, until this issue has been completely resolved! -- NearEMPTiness ( talk) 12:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi
Mindfrieze. I notice you added a column to the table in
Whyte notation to show the number of units produced; the actual number for limited production types or a ballpark figure forWo high-volume types. Your totals are incomplete, however, since it only shows the data in respect of locomotives produced in the USA for domestic use and export. What about the locomotives produced in the rest of the world?
May I suggest you rather add this info to the wheel arrangement articles themselves, as a paragraph at the end of the "United States of America" section in each article. The production figures may already be included in some of these articles, but then you can at least double-check the data for accuracy in the process and maybe add American-Rails.com as an additional reference.
André Kritzinger (
talk)
21:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
For locomotive type names, you need to give the origin of each name. For example, the merger of which two railroads is commemorated in Consolidation? Who's Jenny Lind? Who's Jervis? The latter are well-known persons.
Until you undertake that effort, at least hyperlink names in the table which are simple entities having an article in Wikipedia. This would be very easy to do. Hyperlink to the articles on Jenny Lind, John Bloomfield Jervis, etc. Ditto Mastodon, Mikado, Mohawk, etc.; and even place names like Boston, Bulgaria, etc.
The next step is, once an article on a locomotive type has been written, then hyperlink to it, not the article on the entity of which the locomotive is the namesake. This has already been done with e.g. Crampton, which is linked to the article on the Crampton-type locomotive, not the man Crampton. (The article itself of course provides a link to him.)
On the other hand, with types having more generic names, like Northern, until an article is written about the type, likely no hyperlink is meaningful.
Jimlue ( talk) 20:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I have never seen the 2-2-2 called anything but the "Patentee type", and that's not some obscure thing I dredged up in some old book. I started reading about locomotives like ten years ago and I have come across mention of the "Patentee type" numerous times, I considered that one of the better known and more prominent types in early locomotives. Never once seen reference to a "2-2-2 Single" until now. That's like listing the 4-6-2 as the "St. Paul Type". Yes, that term was probably used by someone at some point, but almost everyone knows that type as the Pacific now. Idumea47b ( talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I love the way the wheels are shown, and with this proposal, we will keep them. We can just add images alongside them. Example, for the 0-10-0, we can add a picture of an 0-10-0 underneath the wheel design like so.