Talk:Locomotives of New Zealand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand Railways. Top Importance: top within New Zealand Railways WikiProject.
	This article is within the scope of the Locomotives task force.

	Locomotives of New Zealand is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Class data tables

FS class E646
E646.209 in San Benedetto del Tronto station (April 13, 2005)
Power type	Electric
Builder	TIBB
Build date	1958-1967
UIC classification	Bo-Bo-Bo
Wheel diameter	1.250 m
Wheelbase	13.550 m between bogies 2.580 m between axles in each bogie
Length	18.290 m
Width	3.013 m
Height	4.296 m
Total weight	110 tons
Transmission	25/64 gear ratio
Top speed	140 km/h
Power output	3,780 kW
Career	FS Trenitalia
Number in class	198
First run	1958
Disposition	decomissioned in 2007

[[Template:Infobox_Locomotive info on this box]

I've bumped this up - the most recent NZR templage :-) --Lholden 03:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added this table to the Silver Fern article, which is basically the same as the BR class data table. I think we should use this on the rest of the NZR loco pages. Any thoughts? --Lholden 02:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That's great! I was actually thinking that a table like that should be included, but as I'm not brilliant with coding and pretty new to Wikipedia, I wasn't quite sure how to make it. I definitely think the table should be applied to other classes. I was also wondering if there were any support for a box down the bottom of each page giving links to all the other classes, much like the box with links to all the other regions at the bottom of the Southland Region page. Of course, we'd need a complete list of classes first - I think the diesel, railcars, and electric categories are complete or nearly there (for example, I understand some experimental railcars were used before those on the list, but I've no information on them), but I'm sure we're missing some steam engine classes. I also think that if such a box were made, we'd need more articles on different classes before it's of significant usefulness. - Axver 09:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we can do that too, I saw one of those for BR locos also, although they split them into Steam and Non-Steam tables. Not really my cup of tea though. --Lholden 07:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Once we have some more articles up, I may consider learning how to make one myself if no-one else wants to do it. I think it would simply be convenient, though I would propose that to save space, a split like steam and non-steam be used (I was thinking of splitting it between steam, diesel, electric, and railcars). - Axver 23:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've started using the following info box on the NZR locomotives pages:

That's all well and good (and I quite like the table), but I haven't a damn clue how to use it. Oh well, I guess if I make any more locomotive pages, someone else can add the table. - Axver 03:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am happy for the locomotive pages to be standardised in this format, and am pleased to see this has now been applied to the W^AB and J^A pages. It also makes it easier to edit the pages as there is no "which code syntax is this again" concerns. J.christianson 03:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I note that Lewis is now applying Template:Infobox LocomotiveNZR across the board. This will allow for specific customisations to suit the New Zealand locomotive pages, and can be edited without consequence or upset to other users that have been making use of Template:Infobox_Locomotive. One thing I liked about the original data table, was that the class descriptor title was visibly integrated into the table - perhaps the LocomotiveNZR template combines the best aspects of both templates (although feel free to edit if there are aspects that could be improved). J.christianson 02:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locomotive class lists

I've been trying to complete the class lists, but my data is not exhaustive, especially as far as steam locomotives go. There's one point I would particularly like to clarify: were there two or three G classes? I understand there was a G class 4-4-0 tank from 1874 (I know nothing else about it), and then there were the three G class 4-6-2+2-6-4 Garratts of 1928 that didn't quite go so well. I have seen mention of a G class 4-6-2 from 1937, and I believe the Garratts were made into six Pacifics - is the 1937 class the Garratt rebuilds? If it's not (though I expect it is), then it should have its own article.

I have also uncovered data on class names given to locomotives acquired by NZR from the WMR in 1908. What I don't know is whether new classifications were created for them or if they were joining classes that already existed. I am assuming the former as I have seen no data that any non-WMR engines on NZR carried the same classification, with two exceptions: No.'s 9 and 10 joining the N class (I have textual evidence of this), and No.'s 6-8 joining the V class (I've seen numbers of five V class locomotives so two of those had to come from somewhere else). Here's my list of WMR/NZR classifications, if anyone can add any information about it:

WMR number - NZR class
1, 2, 4 - Wh
3 - Wj
5, 18 - Nc
6, 7, 8 - V
9, 10 - N
11, 12 - Ob
13 - Oa
14, 15 - Na
16 - Oc
17 - Bc
19, 20 - Ud

Thirdly, what's the deal with the E class? I know of the 0-4-4-0 Double Fairlie E class (both the Avonside model and the Vulcan "Josephine"), but I recently saw a drawing of a 2-6-6-0T locomotive classified as the E class. Anyone know anything about that, if it had any relation to the Double Fairlies, or if not, when it was made?

Finally, I am aware of a number of a number of experimental railcars that preceded those on the list. Off the top of my head, I know there are photographs of three different types in Churchman and Hurst's The Railways Of New Zealand including the Edison battery-electric railcar that ran for a number of years to Little River, and I've read about a Model T Ford bus converted into a railcar that was used in Southland. Were these given class names/numbers? I know the 'first' class of railcar, the Wairarapa railcars, were numbered RM 4-10, and while RMs 1-3 do exist, they were the numbers given to the Silver Fern sets in the 1970s!

I think that's it for now. I'd absolutely love it if anyone with more extensive data than mine could complete the class lists and write some articles (or flesh out the ones I've started). - Axver 04:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've done some research and I now believe the class lists are complete, and I've clarified the E and G class questions. I added a section on WMR locomotives to the Wellington and Manawatu Railway article, but I think that sometime soon, I'll amend the Locomotives of NZ article to mention which NZR classes were originally from the WMR. I've managed to identify 22 locomotives as operating revenue services on the WMR (No. 3 and No. 5 were originally Wh class locos but were retired and their numbers re-used for new engines), though I believe further locos were used on non-revenue construction activity, much like the Public Works Department operated some engine classes that were never used by the Railways Department. Unfortunately, I've uncovered no new information on experimental railcars, but as they never formed classes, I don't suppose it matters too much anyway ... - Axver 04:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toll NZ Article

Have you guys ever considered adding your knowledge to the Toll NZ article? My father has worked for them (New Zealand Rail, Tranz Rail, Toll Rail) and i'm adding as much information as possible. --Matt von Furrie 05:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locomotives template

Earlier this month, I proposed a table to go at the bottom of the pages of each locomotive class, and I just went ahead and made one as I finally have (what I believe is) a complete class list. I basically stole Template:LNER Locomotives and reworded it so that it's appropriate for New Zealand. I've included all engine types with no diesel/steam division, as the names are short enough that they don't make the table excessively large. As we're starting to achieve a decent number of articles, I think this table is useful. I'd like to hear some other thoughts and suggestions, and I'm not going to use this just yet. It's the first template I've made, so I don't want to rush into it and make silly mistakes. When this is ready to use, I'll locate it at Template:NZR Locomotives.

Thoughts, comments, opinions? - Axver 04:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Just thought I'd leave a comment to note that I've edited the template to include links in the Railcars/DMU classes section to the experimental/uncommon railcars for which I've just written articles. - Axver 12:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Template now in use: Another Wikipedian seemed so keen that they actually started creating the template, and I've now expanded it to be in line with the extent of what I posted above. It's a tad different stylistically to the one I posted above, and I prefer it. Use: {{NZR Locomotives}} (another new template I just created that may be of use to some of you is {{NZR Lines}}). - Axver 10:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As per a request from Axver, I have modified the existing {{NZR Lines}} template to make it suitable for the New Zealand Rail Locomotives listings, and submit it here for consideration.

Currently, it can be accessed at Template:NZR Locomotives alt. As I am not one who favours change for changes sake, I will leave this option open for discussion re: merits, usability etc. J.christianson 06:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I quite like that style. It takes up far less room and offers an even better distinction between the categories of locomotives. My only suggestion is that maybe it would be a good idea to link to articles on engine types for people who aren't experts on trains, i.e. "Steam locomotive classes"? - Axver 07:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That's much better. --Lholden 09:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

For a final bit of tidying up, we just have three remaining Railcar classes to determine the naming format for: the Standard, Vulcan and Wairarapa. Are these going to be along the lines of NZR RM (Standard) etc? J.christianson 11:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I was going to follow the current pattern and name them "NZR RM class (Classification-here)", with 'Standard', 'Vulcan', or 'Wairarapa' in the brackets. I plan to start those pages pretty soon as their absence is starting to bug me a bit. Also, I applaud you for cleaning up the steam locomotive links on that table! You might've seen that I'd started some of it, but I needed a break after moving all of the articles in the first place. Well done and thank you for completing the job! - Axver 11:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That seemed logical, in line with the current naming convention, and I had updated the Template appropriately to reflect this. Thanks for filling in the gaps on the Railcars - some meat there now, and I've also noticed a sizeable dent in the number of red links remaining. It was good to see that you had made a start on the Steam section, which lightened the load, so it was a case of getting it done so it's out of the way and we can concentrate on other matters without having to deal with "rogue" links popping up. By the way, I have given some thought to the Loco class template from a usability perspective and there are two reasons why I would be reluctant to turn the category headers into clickable links at this point in time. For users unfamiliar with these dynamic boxes, it may act as a distraction regarding the need to click Show, and current likely linkages discussing motive power etc do not address the categories from a New Zealand locomotive perspective complete with class information. I would not be averse to linking NZ specific articles (perhaps customised and adapted from those on the Locomotive page), but in the interim, I have updated the Template with a "Help" section at the base linking to generic articles for those who may be unfamiliar with the categorisations. What are your thoughts on this? J.christianson 08:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is a consensus of the use of the alternative template, perhaps we could copy the data from Template:NZR Locomotives alt to Template:NZR Locomotives and vice-versa. That way there would be no need to manually edit each of the individual pages, and we can retain the existing template if it is decided to revert. J.christianson 00:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That would make life a lot easier :-) --Lholden 03:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, out of the three of us here, I think we have an overwhelming preference for the new template! No-one's voiced a complaint and there has been ample time to do so, so I say make the change now. If anyone feels there is a need to upgrade it further at a later date, we can have more discussion then. I really like the new template, and I like the little 'help' section - it definitely seems like a better idea than what I suggested due to the absence of NZ-specific articles. Maybe we should make some general articles, though? I think articles on the history of steam, diesel, electric, and railcar traction would not only be useful, but very encyclopaedic. Our railcar heritage certainly has a good story, given NZ's relatively unique conditions and the long time it took to develop a successful class, and steam certainly deserves an article given NZ had the first use of 4-6-2 and 4-8-2! I'd make a start on those but as I've said, I'm putting most of my energy into the branch lines, so I'd be happy if someone else made a start on such pages. I'd propose a standardised title of 'History of [type] railway locomotives in New Zealand', with steam, diesel, or electric where '[type]' is, and for the railcars, 'History of railcars in New Zealand'. Anyone else think that would be a good idea? - Axver 03:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locomotive page names

Over on Talk:NZR F Class, it has been suggested that we need to change the format of our page titles. Initially, the titles were "x class (locomotive)" (where x = actual class's letter), but the proposed (though already carried out on some pages) change is "NZR x Class".

Now, personally, I've initially opposed this, as the namespaces for "x class (locomotive)" are currently unclaimed except by the Kiwi locomotive articles, and I understand we should not defensively disambiguate. If another Aa class arises, we'll deal with the problem then and appropriately adjust by creating a disambiguation page. While there's no conflict, "Aa class (locomotive)" can stay. My other arguments are over on the F class talk page, so I won't repeat them here (though feel free to address them here rather than there if you'd like).

However, if we do the change, we need to be consistent. We have four options as I see it, and watch the capitalisation of 'class' carefully: "NZR F class", "NZR F Class", "NZR class F", "NZR Class F". I personally favour one of the first two; I usually encounter "F class" rather than "class F". I also tend to think 'class' should be uncapitalised. In any case, I always write it without capitalisation in normal text, but maybe it should be for titles.

As far as the actual introduction goes, I think the first sentences should remain as they have always been, with something along the lines of: "The Kr class consisted of seventeen steam locomotives that operated on New Zealand's national rail network ..."

I'd just like to get this resolved. I'm not particularly impressed that we're fussing over something as petty as titles when we've far more important things to do - namely, expanding coverage of New Zealand's locomotives and railways in general! - Axver 07:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation

OK, people, I'm starting to get just a bit tired of the lack of consistency that has gone into moving locomotive articles. I'm cool with moving to "NZR [letter] class", but could it at least have been done CONSISTENTLY? NZR Ab class doesn't work but NZR Ab Class does; NZR K class (Rogers) works but NZR K Class (Rogers) doesn't. I'm getting tired of checking to see whether a class's article has 'class' capitalised in its title or not as that can make all the difference between a working link and a non-working one.

I propose every single instance be uncapitalised as it is needless capitalisation. I'm not going to go ahead and do this without discussion (yet) - let's hope some people actually participate this time, unlike the last time (above) when I tried to have a discussion about naming consistency and not a soul chimed in. - Axver 09:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Axver, some of the moves were done by myself, and others followed. Because the old format still re-directs (e.g. Rogers K class re-directs to NZR K class (Rogers) then I often didn't check them. --Lholden 02:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to get rid of some of the redirects, and that's when I've run into problems. For example, if I use NZR Ab class and I get a red link, I don't know if I've just used the wrong capitalisation or if the class doesn't have an article. So I think it would be very helpful to standardise everything to lower-case 'class'. I'll fix it in a few days if no-one else objects. I'll also standardise the names for class pages where two or more classes had the same letter: K class (1878) and K class (1932) seems far better to me than throwing around words like 'Rogers' and 'original' (which was my fault initially). - Axver 03:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I got stuck into it because I was sick of checking whether an article was 'class' or 'Class' or just didn't exist, and I think all of the articles are consistent now. The {{NZR Locomotives}} template needs some serious work though to correct all of the links that point to redirect pages. I've done some work on it but there's still a way to go. Also, for the steam locos: on the template, should we superscript the second letter if the name is in the format of "Xx", or just leave it as a little letter? At that font size, I think the superscript is harder to read. Though the entire table isn't very glamorous and could use an upgrade. Someone did a very nice job on {{NZR Lines}}, so if someone with the know-how could do that to the Locos template, that would be awesome! - Axver 05:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out the following test template - [[Template:NZR_Locomotives_alt Example]. If you're happy with it in its current form, I can finish it off and submit it for group review. J.christianson 06:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that would be great! I'd be quite happy to use that. Nice work! - Axver 06:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)