Talk:4-8-2
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 maintained by the Locomotives task force. |
--62.14.95.214 22:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)hello. the 4-8-2 locomotive type was also common in SPAIN (here, we call 2-4-1). In the spanish railways, from private companies to nationalizated RENFE, roll more than 200 locomotives of that weel arrangement correwsponding to five tipes. Magí Aloguín i Pallach
- Thanks! I have attempted to incorporate this into the text. Have I got it right? —Morven 11:32, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV?
Is it just me, or is the edit by 210.246.8.40 not exactly from a neutral point of view?
Older text: "Contrary to popular belief, the 4-8-2 design originated in New Zealand, not the United States. The design was an obvious progression from the 4-6-2 "Pacific" type that had originated in New Zealand in 1901 with the Q class, and the first 4-8-2 was built in the New Zealand Railways' Addington Workshops in Christchurch in 1908. Designated as the X class, it was designed to haul heavy freight trains on the mountainous central section of the North Island Main Trunk Railway."
The edit: "Contrary to popular belief, the 4-8-2 design originated in New Zealand, not the United States. (There is no engineering connection between the New Zealand Q class 4-6-2 and the X class 4-8-2. The Q class was truly innovative in that the trailing truck supported a wide firebox. The X class had a narrow firebox and was a glorified 4-8-0, was not innovative, and went no further as a concept. The X were later rebuilt with wide fireboxes but were still not star performers. The X class were a 4-8-2 in wheel arrangement, but not in overall concept as a locomotive.)"
Glorified 4-8-0 perhaps (opinion anyway?), and it was an unspectacular performer, but not innovative? It was the first class built with the 4-8-2 arrangement, which I would consider significant and innovative enough. - Axver 00:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. The use of language like "glorified 4-8-0" makes the article seem less of an objective account and more of an opinion piece. Perhaps it would be better to rephrase along the lines of "although the X class was the first 4-8-2, the trailing truck was positioned well behind a narrow firebox which sat above the driving wheels[1]. Later, more successful 4-8-2 designs were a progression of the classic 4-6-2 layout, which featured a wide firebox positioned above the trailing truck and behind the driving wheels." Zzrbiker 14:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
