Talk:Tom Thumb (locomotive)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance within the Trains WikiProject. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Locomotives task force. |
Contents |
[edit] Horse Race
Should we get more information about that original test up there? (i.e. the date?) It's such a symbolically important event. How much is known though? DHDiamond (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Data removal
I've removed the large data dump that looked suspiciously like a copyvio. If it wasn't, the data (which is still in the page history) will need to be better integrated into the article text. I've started this with the infobox, and I intend to return to this article with a few references that I've got for early locomotives (including White, John H., Jr. (1968). A history of the American locomotive; its development: 1830-1880. New York, NY: Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-23818-0.). Slambo (Speak) 10:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to pick up Sagle's discussion in B&O Power this evening (I hope). Mangoe 12:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Replica vs. original
Sagle provides calculated dimensions for the original engine as against those of the replica, and I emphasize "calculated" (meaning worked out on the basis of statements from Cooper, Latrobe, one W. H. Brown, and Ross Winans). I'd like a second opinion as to whether to substitute those for the dimensions of the replica.
Also, Sagle doesn't mention a belt between the two axles, and I don't see any indications of one in any of his illustrations. I don't have White to check against but you should recheck to make sure that this isn't a misunderstood version of the belt that drove the blower. Mangoe 04:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'll reread it tonight and update as appropriate. Yeah, we should use the original specs in the infobox. There's also a bit more to add from James Dilts's book "The Great Road" about the operation and design philosophy that I need to digest and add too. Slambo (Speak) 10:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like 0-2-2 is the correct configuration with the drawings also published in the current issue of Railway Age. I've updated the text and added the ref. Slambo (Speak) 20:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 0-4-0 or 0-2-2?
Here the article states that Coopers TT was an 0-2-2 which makes more sense if you follow Whyte Notation but I've seen a few articles else where that claim it was an 0-4-0 (trains.com being one of them) which doesn't make sense to me or by the standard. The simple fact that proves it wrong is that there was only 2 drive wheels via one driven axle and 2 trailing wheels (0-2-2). If it were an 0-4-0 it would require no leading wheels, 4 driven wheels and no trailing wheels. I know which one is true and I don't dispute the editors entry; but shouldn't that statement be cited just to minimize any opportunity for someone to argue about it? I've tried to find citations but unfortunately the only ones I found that even mention it's Whyte Notation class is trains.com and a few others that look like they got their info from trains.com. Not a complaint just a thought.
- OK, now I'm even more confused. I found some clearer images of Tom Thumb and it appears that the locomotive was a 2-2-0 because it shows the rear wheels are driven not the front. Which is which anyone know the solution to this mystery? --Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 17:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Changed wheel config per Whyte Notation
Tom Thumb was indeed 2-2-0, 2 front guide wheels, 2 driven wheels and 0 trailing wheels. Although this locomotive was designed before Whyte notations were standard it does make better sense to follow it. --DP67 talk/contribs 22:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
