Talk:Whyte notation

Fairlies; Garratts

1. Fairlies

(Im not sure of the difference between a Fairlie and a Mallett, but generally for the Ffestiniog Railway atleast they were 0-4-4-0s.

2. Garratts

I would tend to use the following for Garratts: 2-6-0+0-6-2

User:Duncharris

As to (1), that's why I need to write articulated locomotive. Basically, a Fairlie (Meyer, Kitson-Meyer, and a bunch of other articulated designs) has two swivelling powered 'engines' (bogies, trucks) under the body of the locomotive. The Mallet has the rear 'engine' fixed in place under the firebox and rear boiler, and the front 'engine' is hinged to that at its rear.

Many (but not all) Fairlies were 'Double Fairlies' with two boilers, but this wasn't strictly necessary. 'Single Fairlies' look normal and have one powered bogie and one carrying bogie.

There were both 0-4-4-0 and 0-6-6-0 Fairlies, the latter being used in Mexico and South America at least; there were a couple of Fairlies used in the US too at one point.

As to Garratts, I agree. Sometimes one will hear them described as 'Double Pacifics' and things like that, too. —Morven 18:44, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay. Next is a proposal to merge this with UIC classification, and wheel arrangement. I suggest that wheel arrangement be its name. —Duncharris 2004-April-5 T 20:08 in UTC

Incomplete list?

The list here, as well as the "Whyte notation" box in articles on individual wheel arrangements, are missing 2-6-8-0. This arrangement is notable for being an articulated with mismatched sets of drivers. SpaceCaptain 00:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone had already added it to the list on this article and created a stub on the locomotive type itself, so I've added it to Template:Whyte types. slambo 13:14, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

That template was what I was talking about - couldn't think of the word. Thanks for adding it! SpaceCaptain 23:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Separate articles

Why do we need a separate article for every layout? Most of them contain no more information than their entry in this list. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

They are separate articles so we can explore the development and use of each class in detail. 4-4-0 and 4-6-2 are examples of what I'm thinking of here. The articles you note that are so short are stubs that will be expanded as editors find the time and resources needed to expand them. Slambo (Speak) 20:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of ones like 2-8-8-8-4, of which only one example was ever built, or 2-8-8-8-2, with three examples of a single model. Those seem kind of acceptable because they're the only articles talking about the locomotives of that type, but 4-4-6-4 and 4-6-4-4 are more blatant examples because each of their respective locomotive classes already have articles of their own. Why do we need a separate article for the wheel layout used by a single locomotive? The issue isn't having articles on ones that are widespread or famous, but on having stubby little articles with no possibility for growth except through duplication of the locomotive article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Another example, 4-14-4 is almost entirely about the locomotive, rather than about the wheel configuration. Wouldn't it be better off under the name of the locomotive? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The articles linked here define the wheel arrangements and discuss how they developed and were used regardless of the number of examples of those arrangements that were actually built. There may have been exactly one 2-8-8-8-2, but I don't see an article for Matt H. Shay because that data is already covered in 2-8-8-8-2. The same can be said for 4-14-4; exactly one was built, but I don't see an article for the Russian AA20-1 class because it's covered in 4-14-4. The data in PRR Q1 and PRR Q2 could be consolidated into 4-6-4-4 and 4-4-6-4, respectively, but as separate articles, the data specific to Pennsylvania Railroad practices can be separated from the data about the specific wheel arrangements. I'm probably not explaining this as well as I could, but I see a good reason for the separation. Slambo (Speak) 21:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What I don't see is why data that's about the development and use of the locomotive should be in an article under the name of the layout, rather than under the article of the locomotive. There is no article for Matt H. Shay or AA20-1, but it seems logical to have one, rather than one titled after the layout of its wheels. It's a specific feature of the design, rather than the design itself. We could write articles about all sorts of features that follow specific patterns, but when there's not much to be said for the feature, we don't need a separate article for it. The only thing exclusively about the wheel layout in 4-14-4 is the first paragraph, which is just an expansion of 4-14-4 into words. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to articles on the major classes that were recognized across multiple railroads (e.g. 2-8-2). Articles on the one-off arrangements are pointless; it immpossible to really say anything about the arrangement as a class when there aren't multiple examples to generalize over.

In Larry Sager's B&O Power he treats the steam locomotives by wheel arrangement after the 1880 reclassification. However, he lumps all the switchers into one group, and all the mallets into one group, and he treats the experimentals in one group. For instance, they had four different 4-6-4 classes, but he doesn't have a section on Hudsons because they were four one-off designs. I think this approach makes sense, though I suspect we might prefer to treat the mallet arrangements separately in some or most cases. I would point out that the only mallet wheel arrangment that I can recall having a name is the "Challenger" (4-6-6-4) class, which was applied over several railroads.

As far as the Whyte template is concerned, I think it should only list the major classes and not the one-offs. It does however make sense for this article to include a list of unusual/on-off arrangements. One-off classes should be addressed by name; e.g. the Matt H. Shay should be the article because any article about that class is going to be about that locomotive. (The wheel arrangement could of course redirect to it.)

I think in general that wheel arrangements that didn't pick up names probably shouldn't have their own articles, because people generally didn't think of them as an independent concept. Mangoe 15:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My personal feeling right now is that 'one-off' arrangements should be redirects to articles on the specific locomotive type that had that arrangement. If an arrangement was used for more than one locomotive class - or indeed there is anything else to mention, such as planned but unbuilt other types with that arrangement - then a small page on the arrangement is quite justified. If the type became more widely used, there should be an article on the arrangement that is more in-depth.

I don't think that whether the arrangement gained a name is all that important, since only the United States and to a lesser degree the UK used names for arrangements that I know of. IMO, if more than one locomotive type used the arrangement, something should be at the arrangement's article - even if only as a disambiguation. If the arrangement was rare, I don't see that much over a disambiguation would be needed. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and "Challenger" wasn't the only named Mallet arrangement. "Yellowstone" (2-8-8-4) was an arrangement used by multiple designs on multiple roads. A number of others got names, but I get the feeling the names were rarely used. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

0-3-0 (?)

Yes, an 0-3-0! Four monorail steam locomotives were built to this wheel arrangement, and one is still extant in India. This is not a joke or an attempt at vandalism, it is true! Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations added

Since another editor tagged this article as lacking in citations, I've spent some time to find and add citations for the majority of the types listed in this article (and copied many of them down to the individual type articles as appropriate as well). There are still more types and more statements in the description area that also need citations, but as it is now more than 50% cited, I've removed the {{citations needed}} template. Specific statements in this article that need citations should be noted with {{fact}} from this point on. Slambo (Speak) 20:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

More arrangements needed

0-4-6 and 0-8-6 needed, these were articulated Engerth locomotives. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

4-4-6 is also needed. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Precognition

In the Biography section, how can the 1913 edition of a book know that a man died in 1941? Just curious. Looks like it was added as of this edit. - Denimadept (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

the book is listed in the references, it has no inline citations attached

at the time of print he was alive so it's a valid reference Dave Rave (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

a non obvious question on wheels

if a tank engine, with a small bin for coal and tanks for water, is able to work and is, say, 0-4-0 why is any engine that has no coal bin or tank, and could never work alone, not noted as a 4-6-2/6 for the leading wheels, driving wheels, trailing wheels, and the tender wheels without which it could not run ? Dave Rave (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Most likely because many tenders are interchangeable with others that could have different wheel arrangements, such as for example the South African Class 19D 4-8-2 and, in fact, the whole family from 19, 19A, etc. Then there are the Garratts that, in South Africa and Rhodesia, could run with or without their water tenders depending on the distance that needed to be travelled. André Kritzinger (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hoax

Please double-check the following links and entries in the table of this article:

• 4-6-2+2-2-4
• 2-6-0+2-4-2
• 8-8-8

Please do not remove this hoax-warning from this talk page, until this issue has been completely resolved! --NearEMPTiness (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The articles have now been deleted. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Number of units produced

Hi Mindfrieze. I notice you added a column to the table in Whyte notation to show the number of units produced; the actual number for limited production types or a ballpark figure forWo high-volume types. Your totals are incomplete, however, since it only shows the data in respect of locomotives produced in the USA for domestic use and export. What about the locomotives produced in the rest of the world?
May I suggest you rather add this info to the wheel arrangement articles themselves, as a paragraph at the end of the "United States of America" section in each article. The production figures may already be included in some of these articles, but then you can at least double-check the data for accuracy in the process and maybe add American-Rails.com as an additional reference. André Kritzinger (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi André Kritzinger. Thanks for the feedback. I came to this article recently trying to determine the most popular or most common locomotives in history. Adding production numbers to the table seemed like a good way to present that info for comparison. Adding that info to the individual articles would be good, but would not be useful for my purpose. I see that these numbers may be incomplete, but I don't have sufficient resources to update them. It was my hope more knowledgeable and dedicated Wikipedians − perhaps you − would be able to refine and expand this info. If it is an infeasible endeavor, I have no objection to you reverting his article. Thanks again for your help. -Mindfrieze (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Origin of names

For locomotive type names, you need to give the origin of each name. For example, the merger of which two railroads is commemorated in Consolidation? Who's Jenny Lind? Who's Jervis? The latter are well-known persons.

Until you undertake that effort, at least hyperlink names in the table which are simple entities having an article in Wikipedia. This would be very easy to do. Hyperlink to the articles on Jenny Lind, John Bloomfield Jervis, etc. Ditto Mastodon, Mikado, Mohawk, etc.; and even place names like Boston, Bulgaria, etc.

The next step is, once an article on a locomotive type has been written, then hyperlink to it, not the article on the entity of which the locomotive is the namesake. This has already been done with e.g. Crampton, which is linked to the article on the Crampton-type locomotive, not the man Crampton. (The article itself of course provides a link to him.)

On the other hand, with types having more generic names, like Northern, until an article is written about the type, likely no hyperlink is meaningful.

Jimlue (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

2-2-2

I have never seen the 2-2-2 called anything but the "Patentee type", and that's not some obscure thing I dredged up in some old book. I started reading about locomotives like ten years ago and I have come across mention of the "Patentee type" numerous times, I considered that one of the better known and more prominent types in early locomotives. Never once seen reference to a "2-2-2 Single" until now. That's like listing the 4-6-2 as the "St. Paul Type". Yes, that term was probably used by someone at some point, but almost everyone knows that type as the Pacific now. Idumea47b (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Patentee or maybe Jenny Lind, but not simply 'single'. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)