# Talk:Fairy Queen (locomotive)

What gauge?
Any technical details? Cylinder size, boiler pressure and wheel diameters are significant. Tractive effort would be interesting too, because locos of this age are rarely usable for hauling passenger trains of modern stock. Just how much of a train is used for this special service?
Clarify "Oldest" vs "Oldest operating" vs "longest operating". The DYK is just plain wrong. This is nowhere near the oldest steam locomotive, nor the longest operating (at least an 88 year gap in its use) and it's not even the oldest to have operated within the last few decades, or that could be made operational for modest effort (Lion and John Bull have strong claims here too, probably others). The Guinness claim really only stands up at the time it was made (It was the oldest locomotive that did run in 1998). If major parts were lost since, then that puts it back into the same status as Lion or John Bull. If it has been restored since, then that really needs a further cite in addition to a now 15 year old Guinness claim. 1855 and earlier locos aren't all that rare and there's a fair chance of others having been run within that timescale.
What was stolen? "boiler" sounds rather unlikely (they're not worth much and not easy to move), "condensor" sounds most unlikely (1855 locos didn't generally have condensors, so just what are we talking about?). Lubricators are regularly stolen and quite easily replaced. I have no idea what "flow tubes" are. Fire-tubes though are considered a consumable part and would be replaced during overhauls.
How were these "irreplaceable" parts replaced?
Needs a photo
Andy Dingley (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

My God, that was quick!
Gauge now added and cited
Technical details just don't seem to be available either on the web or on a search through Google Books.  Even the gauge is only mentioned in one place, the Leeds Engine Builders site.  There are technical details given at Indian Luxury Trains but it seems unclear how these relate to the Fairy Queen, as the makers and years of manufacture are different (could this be the makers of replacement parts?).  If you are able to cast a glance at the table and offer your opinion, I would be more than happy to take your advice.  I'm not sure what you mean by "tractive effort" (I'm no expert on railways or railway technology).  Do you mean the "pulling power" of the locomotive?  If so, there appears to be no information available.  History of Rotating Machinery Dynamics states that the locomotive is "a reciprocating engine that produced rotary motion", but I left that out as I hadn't a clue what it meant.  Are you able to offer any guidance?  I have added details of the size of the train hauled.
The "oldest" claim is quite specific: that it is "the oldest steam locomotive in regular operation", not that it is the "oldest locomotive", "the oldest locomotive operating" or the "longest operating locomotive".  Although both the Lion and John Bull are older and have been steamed, neither are in "regular operation", and have only been steamed occasionally for special events.  The Lion appears to have been last steamed during the making of the film The Titfield Thunderbolt (a great film, by the way) in 1953 (60 years ago), and the John Bull was last steamed in 1981 (32 years ago).  On that basis, it looks to me that the claim made withstands inspection.
Details of the looting of parts come from the one source, and all the items listed are taken directly from that report.  I take your point that boilers aren't worth much, but how much are they worth in India, even as scrap metal?  British railways are constantly plagued by the theft of signal wiring, which surely can't have much resale value, but is often stolen to make a few pounds in scrap value.  In any case, surely the point is that the statement is verifiable: any amendments would be original research, unless a source can be found that says otherwise.  I have, however, expanded the paragraph to include further details from the articles.
I agree the article needs a photo.  There are quite a few good photos on the web of the locomotive looking splendid, but not a single one is a free image, and therefore cannot be used.  I'm not likely to be popping over to Delhi to take one myself in the near future (well, to be honest, I'm not likely to ever be popping over to Delhi), so other than the appeal for an image on the Talk page above (which has been there some time), I'm not sure what else can be done.
Skinsmoke (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Intriguingly, the reports state that when the looting was discovered, the boiler was "riddled with holes", but by the time it arrived in Chennai it was described as "missing".Skinsmoke (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe that a boiler would be stolen (although a set of wheels has apparently just walked, here in the UK!) as they have low value, they're heavy and they don't come to pieces. The history of steam locomotive pilfering has always been that the brass and copper scrap goes, not the ironwork.  Possibly they mean the firebox (these are usually copper), as being internal they're much less obvious if they disappear and they're also rather smaller. As they're usually of arsenical copper, then the thieves may have acquired more than they realised...
There's a serious question over whether this is the oldest operational locomotive, as Express, a sister locomotive, is also preserved and recently operational (see recent additions). It's questionable as to which is the older – although Fairy Queen has perhaps a better claim to being 'operational' in revenue service over a real distance. BTW - Lion was steamed in 1980 too (Rainhill's Rocket 150 event), not sure about since but I think it was last around 1990.
I have the dimensions for Express; although I can't confirm that they're the same for Fairy Queen, they'll be similar. These are 12×22in cylinders with 6ft wheels [Ahrons]. I can't estimate the tractive effort though, as I don't know the boiler pressure (tractive effort is the maximum "pulling force" at slow speed, but doesn't indicate the speed).
The ILT site is simply talking about a different locomotive.  The Kitson site [1] has a few glitches too: Lion was away from Liverpool Museum for a good few years, although it has returned recently to their new Great Port museum. Also Express is Stothert-built, not Kitsons (look at the S on the cylinder covers, rather than the star). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by your comment on the Express, particularly as the Leeds Engine site gives a build number at Kitson's.  Can you provide a citation that it was built in Bristol?  Skinsmoke (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, nobody is claiming that this is "the oldest operational locomotive".  The claim is that it is the "the oldest steam locomotive in regular operation", which is a different thing altogether.  By the way, I have a vague recollection you are correct about Rainhill.  Skinsmoke (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Ahrons, as already cited. Specifically "...built by Kitson and by Stothert and Slaughter" , "The engine Express, illustrated, was one by the latter firm".  Ahrons' photo shows Express (the name is readable, although the number isn't, with that looks like a Stothert maker's plate). Ahrons also give the drivers as 6', not 5'6". Modern photos also show Express with "S" cylinder covers, not stars. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou for conceding that I might possibly be right about something! WP is quick enough to use my photographs of the event, after all. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
You don't, by any chance, fancy taking your camera over to Delhi, do you? (Well, it was worth a try!).  Skinsmoke (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I think we have a real problem with Express.  I've just found the list of preserved steam engines at Indian Railways Fan Club, which also gives the builder as Kitson, and confirms the build number.  How accurate is Ahrons? (I was also a bit suspect about your comment that Ahrons also give the drivers as 6', not 5'6"..  Is this referring to the guage?  If so, it would not have fitted the gauge used by the East Indian Railway Company, which was the standard Indian broad gauge).  Skinsmoke (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Driver diameter is 6'. I think I misread the Leeds site and its annoying scrolling window, and they meant gauge rather than diameter. The question of builder's number is indeed puzzling, as it also means that Express is clearly the older (which is likely anyway). On the whole though, I'd trust Ahrons over a whole bunch of websites. Both for Ahrons' attention to detail and also for being written 75 years closer to the event. After all, we already have websites in this article that claim Fairy Queen is older than Express, that it has the succeeding build number not an earlier and also that it was built a whole century later! Andy Dingley (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, the reliability of websites is a problem.  There are so few that even mention the locomotive (and the books found through Google Books are no better).  It could be that there are more sources in Hindi or Bengali, but, as I can't even read the scripts, never mind understand the languages, they wouldn't be a great deal of help either.
I wonder if we aren't getting bogged down in something that isn't particularly relevant over Express.  Does it matter to the article where it was built?  This isn't an article about Express, after all, and it really deserves only a passing mention, perhaps pointing out that it appears that Express is probably slightly older, but is not, to date, in regular operation.  All mention of the builder (and whether it was the first to operate to Raniganj) can be left out to be argued out if an article on Express is ever created.  If, of course, Express ever enters regular operation (which doesn't seem to be too unlikely a possibility at some time in the future), then this article would need to be amended.  Skinsmoke (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I see the problem now (I'd missed it before).  I presume your problem is the sentence "It was certified by the Guinness Book of Records to be the oldest operational locomotive in 1998".  That statement may be true (we would need to check the entry in the Guinness book), but the contents of Guinness's statement (if that is what they claimed) don't appear ever to have been true.  I'll check the citations again and see how they phrase it (the phraseology is a remnant from before I even looked at the article).  Skinsmoke (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
It was sloppy wording that was the problem!  Have now changed the wording and linked to an image of the certificate issued by Guinness Book of Records.  Is there now any point in having the section on Express?  Can it be deleted?  Skinsmoke (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
'Oldest'
The problem here is that Fairy Queen isn't remarkably old. There are a good number of older, there are even a few that are older and in operational condition. Lion and John Bull could probably be steamed again in a couple of weeks, the point being that their operators choose not to steam them any more, to preserve them in better condition. Lion, certainly, is in excellent shape. So Fairy Queen only makes the record books for being operational, and that's a somewhat transitional state.  The "oldest operated" loco is probably John Bull (oldest when last operated). The "oldest operating in 1998" was Fairy Queen. However Express is almost equally old, probably older, and has operated since then, so clearly taking that same title. Fairy Queen might have regained it since, but this is a title that has been defined so narrowly (as Fairy Queen doesn't qualify otherwise) that it now flips around quite frequently, depending on the recent operational schedule, not the basic age of the loco.

Operational
Is Fairy Queen operational, since December 2012?  We only seem to have one source for this, ILT, and they're citing details of a different loco. Is ILT selling "Fairy Queen" the loco, or (like their other offerings) "Fairy Queen" the steam-hauled train? The TravelPR site is obviously an ILT press release, and even then they're claiming restoration in February 2012. For a restoration of "irreplaceable" parts lost from the "world's oldest locomotive", that's incredibly quick work.

Express
I think we have to keep Express in here. For two sister locomotives of this vintage to have survived, and to still be operational (within a year or two) is quite remarkable. Also Express is probably even the older of the two. Nor is the coverage of Express unduly large. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Dimensions
I'd suggest listing imperial units first and using {{convert}} to go to metric, with appropriate rounding. 6 feet (1,800 mm) is far more likely (and matches the sources) than 1,800 millimetres (71 in), which looks like rounding to 4" units. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Oldest:  I suggest you read the current version of the article.  It states ""The Fairy Queen'" is the world's oldest steam locomotive in regular operation".  The Guinness citation (if you follow the link) states "The "Fairy Queen" Steam Locomotive was built in 1855 by Kitson Thompson and Hewitson of Leeds and in 1997 was still operating a service between Delhi Cantt and Alwar, India a journey of 143 kilometres."  None of the other locomotives you mention is in "regular operation".  Whether you think it is "remarkably old" or not really isn't of the slightest bit of interest at the moment, as no claim is being made that the locomotive is "remarkably old".  The fact that ""Lion" and "John Bull" could probably be steamed again in a couple of weeks" is equally irrelevant.  Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, and until that occurs, and they are placed in regular operation (not just a one-off steaming), the claim for the Fairy Queen stands.  Equally irrelevant is whether the Fairy Queen is the "oldest operated loco".  Again, that is not the claim being made in the article.  At this moment I couldn't care less which locomotive is the "oldest operated loco", as it has no relevance to this article.
Operational:  The fact that you consider the restoration and replacement of "irreplaceable" parts is "incredibly quick work" is your personal opinion, and appears based on your assumption that it was technically impossible to replace them. Is it not more likely that this phrase means that it was impossible to replace them with parts that were of equal historical value?  After all, it is possible to replace any piece of technical equipment, provided that enough money is spent doing it.  It may be difficult to find the craftsmen, or to replicate the techniques, but it is not impossible.  Quite what the phrase "it made a comeback on wheels in February 2012" means is unclear.  What is clear is that the locomotive did not resume operations at the start of the season in October 2012, presumably because restoration work (or earning its certificate) had not been completed.  Whatever the technical details at Indian Luxury Trains refer to, there is no doubt whatever that this press release refers to the locomotive (not some other train hauled by another locomotive under the name Fairy Queen Express), as it goes into the history of the locomotive.  It is also significant that the press release is dated the day before the locomotive supposedly re-entered service, and that the citation at Indian Luxury Trains includes a (somewhat distorted) photograph of the locomotive.  In any case, I have emailed Indian Luxury Trains asking them to confirm that the locomotive that hauled the service from 22 December 2012 is the original 1855 built locomotive Fairy Queen.  I've also asked them if they have a free image we can use.  We'll see if they bother to reply.
Express:  Whether the coverage of the Express is particularly large or not, it really deserves only a passing mention in this article  Where it was built, when and where it was preserved, what the inscription on its pedestal read, whether it was the first locomotive to operate on a specified route, and whether it is a "another contender as the world's oldest operating steam locomotive," (which is particularly glaring as a nonsense statement in this article, as the "world's oldest operating steam locomotive" is not even mentioned up to that point) are all of no consequence to this article.  If you feel that coverage of the Express is not unduly large, then do something about it by adding an article to Wikipedia.  Once that is done, it would probably make sense to add that "A contemporary of the Fairy Queen, the locomotive "Express", has been preserved at Jamalpur Locomotive Workshop since 1901." (possibly updated to reflect the recent renovation work and current status, though I can't be arsed looking for the details of that at the moment).  Skinsmoke (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Dimensions:  I've amended the cylinder size to show imperial measurements first, as that is what is shown in the citation.  Unfortunately, Indian Railways seems to use a mixture of imperial and metric measurements, depending on the type of measurement (just as we do in the United Kingdom though, for example, we use miles rather than kilometres).  We should really stick with the citation (unless you can find an alternative citation, preferably one that can be checked by the Good Article reviewer), and not seek to impose United Kingdom standards on what is a page specific to India (I know that the locomotive was built in the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom's involvement essentially ended once it left our shores).  Specifically, the citation gives the wheel size in millimetres, not in feet or inches.  Is it not possible that the driver wheels have been replaced at some stage during the numerous restorations and rebuilds?  I take your point about the {{convert|12|x|12|in|mm}} format (I knew you could use this for "and" or "to", but didn't realise it was also available for "x"), and have amended the infobox.  Skinsmoke (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
"Oldest" is still a problem. DYK got it wrong (yet again), so any claims made here have to be accurate, especially for GA. It is far from clear which of four locos (maybe others) was "the oldest loco when last operated" (it rather depends on when John Bull was last steamed) and it's likely that Fairy Queen's only substantial claim is to be "the oldest loco currently operating" – a claim that evaporates as soon as another loco operates more recently than Fairy Queen does and is equally old at the time. In 2011, this happened with Express (as Fairy Queen was then non-operational). Showing that the title has now reverted to Fairy Queen requires a source – we can't rely on Guinness from 15 years ago.
The ILT ref is about a different loco, built in 1946 (none of the other details fit for an 1855 loco either). We can't say from this ref alone whether they've got the wrong loco, or if that's the loco they're actually using. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Replaced parts clearly weren't "irreplaceable", so the phrasing of the source for "irreplaceable" becomes suspect. In particular, terms for the parts stolen like "boiler", "condensor" and "flow tubes" are highly dubious. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The dimensional point is that Kitsons can be assumed to have built 6' wheels (as a precise measurement), but they didn't build 1800mm wheels. 6/1800 is a reasonable presentation, with a reasonable approximation, but 1800/71 is now introducing an error. If this is the best approximation available, then it should not be rounded to a narrower precision after conversion than the precision of the supplied unit. If India is using more km than miles these days, then use whichever is most appropriate. It's uncertain whether the driving wheels have been re-tyred, although they've probably been turned on a wheel lathe. Either way though, convention is to always cite the diameter as built, not to reduce it by 1/4" or so after turning, even if that's what they now actually measure.
Cylinder stroke of 12 just looks like an error. Express is 12×22 and although that's no cite for the Kitson locos, 12×12 would be incredible. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Oldest:  Whether or not "Did You Know" got something wrong is not relevant.  Full stop.
Which is the "oldest loco when last operated" is not relevant.  The article makes no mention of that.  Full stop.
The claim made for the Fairy Queen is not that it is "the oldest loco currently operating", so your comments on which is (or is not) are not relevant.  Full stop.
The claim for the Fairy Queen is that it is "the world's oldest steam locomotive in regular operation".  So far, you have not come up with another contender for that title.
Agreed that we cannot say from this reference alone, which locomotive Indian Luxury Travel is marketing.  However, we can say with some certainty from this reference, (did you look at it?) which locomotive is being marketed.  In any case, we might as well wait to see whether Indian Luxury Travel responds to the email which I mentioned in my last posting.
Operational:  On Wikipedia, we go with the sources, even if those sources may not be true.  See Wikipedia:Verifiability:
In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view.
The sources all decribe the stolen parts as irreplaceable.  Whether the list is dubious or not, those are the items listed in the source.  Your suggestion that those parts were not stolen or missing is original research, which has no place in Wikipedia.  Find a source which says they weren't stolen or missing.
Dimensions:  We cannot assume that Kitson did anything.  Again, Wikipedia goes with the source, even though that source may be wrong.  Find another source that gives the dimensions.
Your assertion that a "cylinder stroke of 12 just looks like an error" is original research, which has no place in Wikipedia.  Again, Wikipedia goes with the source, even though that source may be wrong.  Find another source that gives an alternative cylinder stroke.  Skinsmoke (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The more you throw around terms like "Full stop." and refuse to discuss anything, the less this looks like meeting GA.
The world's oldest operating steam loco, from present sources, appears to be Express in 2011 (when Fairy Queen was damaged). There are still no adequate sources that show Fairy Queen has returned to service. There is one from ILT saying it "is all set to" (future tense) and another saying that the loco they are going to use was built in 1946 (and so isn't Fairy Queen). None of this is evidence that Fairy Queen isn't running again, but nor is it an adequate GA-level source that it is. Once there is some source saying that Fairy Queen has (past tense) run in December, then there might be justification for a GA-grade article to claim this, but not before. Two major Indian newspapers covered Express running in 2011, so maybe they've covered these runs too?
Your idea that obviously wrong information belongs in an article because some careless newspaper journo copied it down incorrectly is pernicious nonsense. If the sources can't be reconciled then that reduces the amount we can safely say about a topic, but it never becomes evidence for an obvious falsehood. The 22" cylinder stroke is in Ahrons, specifically for the Stothert & Slaughter locos and so I wouldn't claim that it will be exactly the same for the Kitson-built, but it's consistent with the photographs of both. The idea of a 12×12 square bore for an 1855 steam loco is bizarre: exactly the sort of "extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence" that WP:V specifically requires. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe I was getting a little frustrated, as you don't appear to be listening.  You still appear to be ignoring the second source from Indian Luxury Trains this reference, where it is perfectly clear which locomotive was to be used.  The other page from Indian Luxury Trains merely serves to demonstrate that operations recommenced on 22 December 2012 (as opposed to any other date).  As I have now said four times, in any case we should wait to see what (if anything—though I have so far received an acknowledgement) Indian Luxury Trains have to say in their reply to my email.  We can then take it from there.  Agreed?
As for the cylinder size, does it need to be in the article if we are unable to find a "reliable" source (or any source at all other than the Indian Railways page?  I would certainly have no objection to removing that field in the infobox.  Skinsmoke (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Image is completely wrong as well, the Fairy Queen is a 2-2-2 from 1855, the photo shows a standard 4-6-2 Pacific built in the 1920's or 30's. Needs to be removed but I don't know how to go about this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.146.140 (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC) 

This comment was originally in the #File:Fairy Queen Train.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion section, but the concern is now about File:Fairy Queen.JPG not that image. I agree that it does not match the description or the museum's own photographs of the locomotive with this name. I removed the image from the article and tagged the image itself as disputed content. Thanks for noticing and reporting it! DMacks (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fairy Queen (locomotive). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115175935/http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/view_section.jsp?lang=0&id=0,2,320,378,1062 to http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/view_section.jsp?lang=0&id=0,2,320,378,1062
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130101213354/http://www.indianluxurytrains.com:80/news/steam-express-fairy-queen-train-23539.html to http://www.indianluxurytrains.com/news/steam-express-fairy-queen-train-23539.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fairy Queen (locomotive). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130122204527/http://pitara.com/discover/5wh/online.asp?story=108 to http://www.pitara.com/discover/5wh/online.asp?story=108
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

This article has the Category:Luxury trains in India (which is a subcategory of Category:Indian Railways trains), even though the article is basically about a locomotive. The fact that this locomotive occasionally hauls a special luxury train doesn't seem to merit categorising it as a train, in my opinion. So I removed that categorisation, which was reverted by @Andy Dingley here [2], stating that "Near enough [to a train] though - we're also categorising it as tourism". 
The article title itself states "locomotive", and there are only a few sentences in it about the train service that it occasionally runs (these sentences themselves feel quite out of place: contrast the first sentence The Fairy Queen [...] is a steam locomotive with Unlike other luxury trains in India, the Fairy Queen has a total of only two coaches and a capacity to carry 50 passengers).
I believe that anything about the train service ought to be split into a different section and not considered the main topic of this article; correspondingly, the category of "Luxury trains in India" should be removed. Not sure what to do with the tourism category. NS-Merni (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

We have no separate article on {Fairy Queen, the train}. But we do have a relevant section in this article.
Wikipedia categorisation is navigational, not ontologically defining. The fact it's categorised under luxury trains means that this is the closest article we have to something relevant there under that title, not that we think it is identical to our definition of a train. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)