Talk:Steam locomotives of the 21st century

Untitled

Article under construction. Biscuittin (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What will this cover that Advanced steam technology doesn't? Though both seem like WP:CRYSTAL to me, lacking refernences. Is there any science on these things? How do you beat a Cat engine running on diesel fuel? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And what about China, especially industrial steam in China that is still being used? What about industrial steam in Cuba? Tony May (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed builds needed

Hi and you need to add the next proposed build the A1 steam trust are planning is a LNER J38 number 1416 see here on this link if you haven't read it, https://twitter.com/60163_tornado/status/715802348455649280 and also you will need to add information about the J39 64960, though a site hasn't been done yet but however you will still need to do that because they're plans to build it, and more to that an LMS Stanier Class 5 Caprotti replica is set to be built soon check that website out, http://www.britishcaprottiblack5.org.uk/ it needs to be updated as number 44687 is going to be a replica of a Caprotti, so can you add them, Trooper201 (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source. It fails WP:SPS, for one thing. Regarding the other, it's a WP:PRIMARY source. What we need are reliable third-party sources that categorically state that these "replicas" will definitely be built. There are lots of "plans" to build replica locos - so many in fact that given the current economic situation, I am seriously at a loss to know where the money is to come from for all of them. Most such schemes will never get off the ground, so these "proposals" amount to no more than pipe-dreams and crystal-ball gazing. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say many will "never get off the ground". Until 2016, PRR 5550 was a "pipe dream proposal" that many stated would never get off the ground. As of 2017? The locomotive is under construction with two driving wheels, the number plate, headlight, a driving link pin, the prow and cab either under construction or completed. Some projects don't get off the ground while a great number have. As a compromise, I suggest only proposed projects that appear promising enough with solid proposals and deep realistic forethought brought into account be added to the "proposed" list.MatthewAnderson707 (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Is that all? Those items are comparatively cheap, and apart from two or three, can't even be attached to one another. You can't place a cab upon a pair of wheels, put a headlamp on it somewhere and call it a locomotive. What about the main frames and the boiler, the two largest and most expensive components? Without frames, there is nothing to mount those other items on to. How about the cylinders? They're quite pricey too. What's a "prow"? Ships have prows. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI - the "prow" on a locomotive is the pointy bit at the front! It was a experimental feature for streamlining on a few locomotive and railcar designs, particularly in the US. Interestingly, the term "prow" (and also "stern") as applied to trains goes back at least as far as a patent from 1865 by Samuel Calthrop, although the ideas weren't implemented until the early 20th century. The ebook preview of "Streamliners: Locomotives and Trains in the Age of Speed and Style" is well worth a read. The nautical analogy also continued with the use of "port holes" for windows. Robevans123 (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Remove NYC Hudson from proposed list

As of 2017, there has been no news regarding the NYC Hudson proposal, the original website is down and there is speculation within the railfan community that the project is dead. Can someone please confirm this and possibly remove the Hudson from the list? On a side note, I'd like to point out that it is unfortunate that so far, all attempts to resurrect the NYC Hudson have fallen. MatthewAnderson707 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hudson has been removed. It may not be over for New York Central though, there are some rumors of an S2a Niagara to be built in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.114.42 (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

We don't deal in rumours. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

A little harsh don't you think? I did not add the Niagara to the article. I was simply saying that if it becomes fact you can add it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.47.66 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, 76.94.114.42 wrote "there are some rumors of an S2a Niagara to be built in the near future". We cannot say this in the article since it would be very much against the core policy on verifiability. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

But again nobody said to put it in the article nor was it added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenesisFan99 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Article talk pages - such as this one - are for discussing improvements to the related article. Improvements may be items to add, amend or remove. We discuss them on the talk page before amending the article itself, except where WP:BEBOLD applies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think it's reasonable to include loco build projects here where they're "rumoured" and the project goes no further than that – provided that WP:GNG is met, in that there is secondary coverage of that rumour in the relevant press. It doesn't matter if the project is ludicrously over-optimistic and goes nowhere, provided that it garnered attention at the time. If everyone thinks there's going to be a build project, or if everyone immediately dismisses the project as far-fetched, then fine. We're covering the community reaction to it. Provided that this reaction was reported by the reasonable sources (the hobbyist magazines), then we're good. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Jendon Class Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)