Talk:Steam locomotive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 25 March 2007, Steam locomotive was linked from B2.is, a high-traffic website. All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the revision history.

	Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
	See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
	This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject.
	This article is maintained by the Locomotives task force.

To-do list	Pending tasks for Steam locomotive:	(purge cache –  edit this list)
	Copyedit More discussion of non-USA practice Better diagram-- others I've found are too detailed, this one doesn't show boiler Much more linkage/see also References/externals
See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Todo

Contents 1 My edits 2 Appliances 3 "Rocket" replicas 4 Citing a video is not always advertising rather it is evidence 5 Syntax and editing 6 Superheating

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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^{[citation needed]}. 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^{[citation needed]}. 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 2 ft (610 mm) 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)