Jump to content

Talk:Indian locomotive class WG

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Preserved locomotives

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_locomotive_class_WG&diff=493658090&oldid=493652575

Please do not remove references when adding information.

The number of preserved locomotives is of note, but needs a source. Thank you.Oranjblud (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List

[edit]

Moved from article:

Table of orders and numbers
Year Manufacturer Serial nos. Qty All-India Nos. Notes
1950–51 North British Loco 26415–26514 100 8301–8400
1950–54 Chittaranjan 100 8401–8500
1955–56 Société Anglo-Franco-Belge 2687–2768 82 8501–8582 8517–8580 subcontracted to Henschel (29217–29280)
1954–55 Chittaranjan 107 8583–8689
1955 Chittaranjan 50 8690–8739
1955–56 Chittaranjan 100 8740–8839
1954 Henschel & Sohn 28984–29043 60 8840–8899
1954 Krupp 3391–3430 40 8900–8939
1954 Lokomotivfabrik Floridsdorf 17704–17763 60 8940–8999
1955 Baldwin 76039–76088 50 9100–9149
1955 Hitachi 12261–12285 25 9150–9174
1955 North British Loco 27594–27618 25 9175–9199
1956 Ansaldo 1398–1422 25 9200–9224
1954 Hitachi 12173–12247 75 9225–9299
1956–57 Chittaranjan 220 9300–9519
1957–59 Chittaranjan 220 9520–9739
1959 Chittaranjan 118 8000–8117
1959–60 Chittaranjan 172 8118–8289
1960–61 Chittaranjan 120 9740–9859
1961 Chittaranjan 90 9860–9949
1962 Chittaranjan 107 9950–10056
1962–63 Chittaranjan 93 10057–10149
1963 Chittaranjan 51 10150–10200
1963–64 Chittaranjan 92 10201–10292
1964–65 Chittaranjan 75 10293–10367
1965 Chittaranjan 50 10368–10417
1967 Chittaranjan 65 10418–10482
1968–70 Chittaranjan 78 10483–10560

If there is going to be a list it should be verified. It's also not entirely clear if this is the correct way to present this, or if this isn't overblown coverage. If the table contained additional information on the locos eg differences, service, allocations then I would be more convinced. As is it would be better just to link to a source - there is a limit on what is and is not suitable for an encyclopedia, and what is further reading. Oranjblud (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]