Talk:Locomotives of Pakistan

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Pakistan may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Missing locos

Comparing with the IRFCA list, [1] classes from 65xx to 83xx are missing from the Wikipedia list. These are relatively new locos, so I don't think they will have been scrapped. Roberttherambler (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added classes AGE30 and PHA20. As I don't have any up-to-date information on which classes are still in service, I will stop there for now. Roberttherambler (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed classes AGE30 and PHA20 because they may have been withdrawn. This article on the CRRC Ziyang locos shows one carrying number 6009, which was an AGE30 loco, so I think some renumbering has taken place.[2] Roberttherambler (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the list to match the list at [3] and I have added a note that not all the locomotives are still in service. In the absence of firm information about withdrawals I think this is the best plan. If you disagree, please discuss. Roberttherambler (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to table

I think horsepower would be more useful than length in the table so I am planning to change it. Are there any objections? Roberttherambler (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None...go ahead. I started the article with limited information and knowledge on locomotives. Feel free to add in more useful information. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will go ahead. Roberttherambler (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]