Talk:4-6-2

message: I do not know a BR 04 pacific, therefore emoved that. --Sunshinemind 08:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany 

message: The history section is rather long, and doesn't contain specific headings for the development of the Pacific in the United States and Britain. Should we limit history to the original NZR Q class, and then a more general discussion of the features of the Pacific that made it attractive to other railway companies before discussing development in the USA and UK in separate sections?
I also suggest we use the picture of the famous LNER_4468_Mallard locomotive (Mallard locomotive 625.jpg), as this will better represent British design and the popularity of streamlined Pacific locomotives of the 1930s. Zzrbiker 06:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reorganise "History" section? 

message: I suggest that the history section include the following paragraph between the current last and second last paragraphs of the section. (If anyone could tell me the prevailing axle load on PRR lines for the K5 example, that would be great!) Your thoughts?
"As requirements for higher speed and greater tractive effort grew, locomotive designs of the Pacific type were increasingly constrained by the grate size able to be supported by a single trailing axle, and the factor of adhesion possible within a given axle load. In the USA, the Pennsylvania Railroad class K5 of 1929 developed a very credible 54,675 lbf (243.21 kN) of tractive effort, but with only three powered axles and a 31.5t(?) axle load its 208,250 lb (94,461 kg) adhesive weight was insufficient to allow that tractive effort to be fully exploited without risk of wheelslip. Similarly, in France some of Andre Chapelon's rebuilt Pacifics were developing such high tractive effort for their weight, they had to be converted from a 4-6-2 to a 4-8-0 layout for the increased tractive effort to be reliably utilised under all conditions." 
Zzrbiker 04:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New paragraph to discuss limitations of Pacific type? 

message: :Image:Q class.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Q class.jpg

message: I re-ordered the regional examples alphabetically to make them easier to read and more accessible, though someone more knowledgeable about such things might want to tease the Canadian and US stuff apart. At the moment they're stuck together for no obvious reason. Anyway, I also pulled apart the history and naming sections so they'd be easier to read. Citations as to which explanation of the name come from what sources would be helpful. The previous statement that 'one was right and the other wrong' may well be true but was hardly an encyclopaedic entry! I'd like to see some explanation (and citations) that say how and why the Hudson and Mountain types were [a] developed from the Pacific, and [b] better than the Pacific, which was what the previous version seemed to suggest by the words "developed from". Surely its better to say that in certain situations those two designs offered advantages, and then list those advantages. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bit of a tidy up 

message: One wonder where these were forgotten? I add the details in main article.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.84.195 (talk • contribs) 08:15, April 21, 2008
:One reason is likely that other editors didn't have any information about them from reliable sources that could be cited. Slambo (Speak) 14:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding the info.  Now, do you have any sources for the information that can be cited in the text?  Slambo (Speak) 15:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tunisian 1000 mm gauge Pacifics 

message: Thanks. More information are coming, but the figure of 7600 Pacific locomotives which have been running in Canada and United States since Pacific type locomotives were introduced to US rails in 1902, is really too high. Regarding the Pensylvania Railroad I have understand that only two types of Pacifics ( with sub-classes ), K2 and K4 were used. The last two K4s built become class K5 for some reason. Peharps heavier axle load than K4? 
Last K4´s running at New Jersey as late as in 1958. From 1938 on, newly formed French National Railways SNCF owned more Pacific type locomotives than Pennsylvania Railroad.   
There are many reliable writers who devoted their entire life for steam locomotives, such as O.S.Nock, Cecil J. Allen, Paul Walter Kiefer ( for US locomotives ), Anthony E. Durrant, ( mainly to African steam locomotives ), Frances M. Page, Peter Kalla-Bishop, Bernhard Schmeiser,
G.S.Moore, Hugh Hughes, Gerard Vuillet etc, who all have passed away, just to mention of few world wide known authorities regarding of steam locomotives. Lucky some old "iron dinosaurous" are still among us, the experts such as Martin Murray, Hansjurgen Wenzel, Reimar Holzinger etc just to mention of few.
The classic British Pacific Locomotives by Cecil J. Allen ( last published edition 1971, SBN 7110-0261-4 ) is highly recommended to those who want detailed information of British Pacific locomotives performance in their hey-day service on the road. 
According to late Dr W.A. Tuplin,British Steam Since 1900 ( ISBN 7153-4326-2 ) there were on 31.12.1947 279 Pacific type locomotives running in Great Britain of the total stock of 19.843 steam locomotives, then on books of the four big railway companies. This presents only 1.4 per cent of the steam locomotive total, but this 1.4 per cent is the best documented in British railway literature and in articles published by railway magazines. Since 01.01.1948 only few Pacific type locomotives which were ordered by the private big four railway companies 
entered out of works: LMS 1 ( Number 6257 "City of Salford" ), LNER] 64 ( Peppercorn classes A1 and A2 ), Southern Railway 50 Builled Pacifics; Battle of Britain class numbers 34071 - 34090, 34109, 34110, West Country class numbers 34091 - 34108, Merchant Navy class numbers 35021 - 35030. 
Nationalised British Railways built 10 class 6P5F ( Clan ), 55 class 7P6F ( Britannia ) and
one class 8P ( Duke of Gloucester ) Pacific type locomotives in 1951 - 1954.
Those who want more detailed information of the " Standard Pacifics " E.S.Cox British Railways Standard Steam Locomotives published by Ian Allan, London 1966 is a valuable source. I am afraid that these three books are rareties today, difficult to obtain from secondary book markets.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.186.76 (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacific type locomotive 4-6-2 / 2-3-1 / 2C1 

message: Greetings,
I've noticed recent edits which list individual locomotive details for Pacific locomotives in selected countries.
I think these greatly diminish the quality of the article. This level of detail is almost unwarranted in articles on a specific class of locomotive (eg, we don't provide individual details on every Pennsylvania RR K4, or every DR Kriegslokomotiv, even in articles on those specific locomotive classes), let alone being rolled up into an article on the locomotive type.
If noone has any objections, I would like to revert these edits or at least remove the unnecessary detail. 
Zzrbiker (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - you can see from the thread immediately following this one that I did *try* to work out a solution with the editor who had a view that builder serial numbers were extremely important. I think at the same time that the list stuff needs to be split out, a lot of the WP:NOR-offending copy probably needs to be pruned right out. Once again, if anyone has any suggestions or objections, please let me know. - Zzrbiker (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superfluous/trivial details - lists of individual locomotives 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: I've added the above tags because it appears there are large swaths of the article that go unreferenced. I've opened this thread as a courtesy if anyone wants to engage in discussion or has concerns about these tags. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 17:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|CN}} tag and {{tl|more footnotes needed}}