Talk:Pug (steam locomotive)

Article Move?

Well, it's not really correct, is it? The term 'Pug' appears to have been applied loosely to any small 0-4-0 saddle tank loco, so it doesn't count as a locomotive 'class' in the usual sense.

I would suggest Pug (steam locomotive) would be a more accurate article name.

EdJogg (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Change made as suggested Rosser Gruffydd 07:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated the linked articles to match. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Definition of a Pug

As far as I know, "Pug" is a distinctly Scottish term. I have never heard it used in England. I thought "Pug" was simply the Scots word for a tank locomotive but, at one point, the article seems to suggest that it applies to a 0-4-0T but not to a 0-6-0T. Can any Scots readers clarify the matter? Biscuittin (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It was used in England to refer to the L&YR 0-4-4STs, at least. I've never heard it used to refer to small industrial saddle tanks, despite spending some time around them in preservation. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Boddy, M.G.; Brown, W.A.; Fry, E.V.; Hennigan, W.; Hoole, Ken; Manners, F.; Neve, E.; Platt, E.N.T.; Proud, P. (1977). Fry, E.V. (ed.). Locomotives of the L.N.E.R., part 9B: Tank Engines - Classes Q1 to Z5. Kenilworth: RCTS. p. 105. ISBN 0 901115 41 X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

This states 'The term "pug" was usually reserved on the N.B. for this class, whereas the neighbouring Caledonian men referred to all tank engines as "pugs".' --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The L&YR didn't have any 0-4-4STs. They did have some 0-4-4Ts with side tanks, 72 of these being introduced by William Barton Wright from 1877 and lasting until about 1910.

• Marshall, John (1972). The Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway, volume 3. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. ISBN 0 7153 5320 9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

You are perhaps thinking of the Aspinall 0-4-0STs: "The first locomotives he ordered were three 0-4-0 saddle tanks, numbered 916-8, obtained from Vulcan Foundry in November 1886 (VF 1176-8). These were important in that they formed the basis of the famous Aspinall 'pug' design" (Marshall 1972, p. 128) "Aspinall prepared a design for a 0-4-0 saddle tank closely resembling the three Vulcan tanks ... The 'pugs', as they were known ..." (Marshall 1972, p. 140). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry that was just a typo. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Highet, Campbell (1970). Scottish Locomotive History 1831-1923. London: George Allen & Unwin. ISBN 0 04 625004 2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

In this book we find the encompassing statement "Of shunting 'pugs' as tank engines were known throughout Scotland, there were ..." (Highet 1970, p. 87). It seems that "pug" could certainly mean a 0-6-0T, on the Caley at least: when discussing Drummond's CR locos, Highet states "Two classes of 0-6-0 saddle tanks were built. The first was in 1887, the year of Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee, hence the class became known as the 'Jubilee Pugs'" (Highet 1970, p. 134); these were the Caledonian Railway 385 Class. The next paragraph begins "1888 also saw the production of six 'Dock Pugs', neat little 0-6-0 saddle tanks ... the boilers were very similar to those of the 0-4-0STs and Killin pugs" (Highet 1970, p. 134); the 0-6-0Ts were the 272 Class, and the "Killin pugs" probably refers to the 262 Class, a pair of 0-4-2STs built immediately before the first eight of the 264 Class. But best of all is the frontispiece, a colour plate showing a Pickersgill 944 Class 4-6-2T, and in the caption is the text 'Wemyss Bay Pug'. "Pug" therefore does not exclusively mean a small steam loco, since these weighed in at 91t 13c spread over six axles. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)