Talk:Steam locomotive components

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 June 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.

Trains: in UK / Locomotives Mid‑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

Mid

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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

Steam train operation

How about some information on how to actually drive a steam engine? I am planning to volunteer at the local steam railroad, I might ask one of the engine drivers... --GSchjetne 10:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not appropriate for this article, but might merit its own article? By the way, there's a fun book called "How to drive a Steam Locomotive" by Brian Hollingsworth which you can still find used, for example [1] about half way down the page (as I write this). I'd recommend that for any budding steam engineers. In the UK many restored railways offer one day steam loco driving experiences, which I'd thoroughly recommend. This doesn't seem as common in the US, perhaps because of insurance costs? Good luck, Gwernol 15:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a related page in wikibooks: Steam Locomotive Operation

Sv1xv (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic differences

There are differences in nomenclature between US - English - European, how come there is no acknowledgement of this in such an important article?SatuSuro 14:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SatSuro, I agree that would be an improvement. How about being bold and starting to add some? The one thing to be careful of is that some components may have multiple names in different locales. We don't want to over-clutter the article. I'll jump in and add a few myself too. Best, Gwernol 15:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative components picture

thumb|500px I'm quite struck by Panthers component diagram and have been playing with adding further numbered arrows and a description with a view to replacing this page. My current version is at User_talk:AGoon/Steam_locomotive_components. Feel free to correct and or add to descriptions and list any further parts that you think should be labeled on the diagram. Seperate diagrams for different types of valve gear might be appropriate on this page too. Thoughts? --AGoon 13:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this diagram better for the steam locomotive article. The other diagram is a bit better for the more detailed article because it is, well, more detailed. Mangoe 16:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think the various valve gear diagrams should go with their particular articles. Mangoe 16:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current illustration is not a more detailed picture, and is of lower quality and clarity than Panther's illustration, which has good cut-aways showing internal detail. There are differences in features between the two engines and the current one has many more labels around the valve gear, but is too crammed to be useful and I agree with Mangoe that the gear is better illustrated within the valve gear article.

The differences are:

Old diagram has labels

6. Cross head
7. Guides (valve gear)
9. Valve stem (valve gear)
10. Link ?
11. Reverse lever (valve gear)
13. Tumbling shaft (valve gear)
14. Rocker arm (valve gear)
15. Eccentric rod (valve gear)
20. Injector
21. Boiler check
23. Auxiliary Steam Dome

New diagram has additional labels:

Air hose
Ashpan hopper
Blast pipe
Brake shoe
Coal bunker
Coupler
Generator
Grate
Headlight
Journal bearing
Piston
Safety valve
Sand pipe
Smoke stack
Smokebox door
Superheater
Throttle lever
Throttle valve
Valve
Valve gear
Water compartment
Whistle

I am still working on Panther's illustration and will add more features (help would be appreciated in correctly identifying them)

--AGoon 21:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've spent a bit of time revising the diagram and adding new bits to the imaginary locomotive to illustrate as many features as I can. There has been little feedback during this process, I expect there might be a a bit more now that I've substituted my version into the article page ;-). Of course everyone will make corrections/additions/deletions (hopefully not reversions). If there are items that really should be on this diagram but aren't (or haven't been labeled), I am happy to try and add them. As discussed the valve gear (and its variations) should be illustrated seperately. We could perhaps also have a diagram just showing the frame, suspension, bearings and wheels. --AGoon 08:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steam Locomotive Code

Steam locomotives have been making a comeback with more and more operations restoring an building new steam locomotives. Such operations normally require compliance with Federal and State regulations. The Federal regulations are 49CFR Part 230. State requirements require that the manufacturer contact the State for applicable requirements.

208.253.187.46 19:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chimney/Funnel Differences for Different Fuels

I just finished reading Stephen Ambrose's "Nothing Like It in the World: The Men Who Built the Transcontinental Railroad 1863-1869" which is an excellent book. It has a picture in the middle which shows the Central Pacific and Union Pacific railroads meeting "in a famous photograph by AJ Russell. The CP's engine Jupiter is on the left (it is using wood for fuel; thus the smokestack is round and covered by a screen to catch sparks). The UP's Engine No. 119 is on the right (it used coal for fuel and thus had a straight smokestack)."

My question is why do wood-burning engines need round (ie: conical) smokestacks? The best guess I've heard so far is that it stops the screen from getting clogged easily, but I haven't found anything definitive. Any help answering the question would be appreciated. 69.23.97.246 (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced article

Beacuse this article is marked as {{unreferenced|date=January 2008}}, I added a couple of references to related web pages. Sv1xv (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing major components

I cannot see a water pump or injector. Could someone with good artistic skills add it ?

Sv1xv (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arrow for the sandbox in the diagram points to the top of the engine.... the sandbox is normally underneath the engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.97.253 (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the part in the lower front of the locomotive typical of many steam engines is missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.224.120 (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox

I don't think it is appropriate to have a navbox for steam engines on this article, which is about steam locomotives.

Of course, if someone were to create a navbox on steam locomotives, that would be different. A quick search reveals lots of specific templates, such as Template:LMS Locomotives but nothing appropriate for this general overview.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is appropriate, although the navbox content could still be improved (although it should be kept specific to the scope of steam engines). Many of the issues here, particularly valvegear, as just as relevant to locomotives as to stationary engines.

Before the steam engine navbox, there used to be a piston engine navbox - now the content of that was really irrelevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the nax box should mention the article. I have added it in a way that makes sense to me.

Maybe "See also" should be in italics though...

Yaris678 (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post-AfD July 2021

Various proposals were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steam locomotive components including article rename or change to glossary. I gave a commitment to make it tabular by 14th July, with the AfD extending that is impractical and that (best effort) commitment date is 19 July 2021 (that is best reasonable effort and I have RL stuff). I'd estimate it would take me less than 30 minutes offline, (I'd reckon there are people would could do it in well less than ten, maybe well less than five), if I was on top-link; I'm not currently, and if may take several hours elapsed especially as RL interrupts are highly likely at present. I also don't want to do it if its not needed. If I do it and consensus is not an improvement I'm happy to revert. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To rectify the shortage of references, which some have rightly pointed out, I have added individual page references to nearly all components from the third reference – Fowler (1906), Locomotive dictionary ...., and I have also moved the article to include "Glossary of", since nobody seemed opposed to that.

Feel free to revert if you want.

With regard to Djm-leighpark's offer to re-format the article, I noted DAHall's comment: "One problem I can see with converting the text to table format is a point of difference with the armour components article – the text describing some components, such as those in the cab, is longer and will fit less readily in a table. Also, photos of some components might be hard to get hold of – especially the internal ones." I'm not really convinced that a tabular format is necessary. My 2c worth. SCHolar44 (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tablulation by Djm-leighpark

With SCHolar44's comments I see no prospect of a concensus to proceed so I am withdrawing the offer. Issues mentioned were not insurmountable but due to RL considerations I am not proceeding. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Not done[reply]

With respect, Djm-leighpark, I did not see my comment as interrupting the likelihood of consensus – reflected in my "happy to revert" remark. I just mentioned a factor brought up by another editor (i.e., rather larger content than in the Armour article you mentioned earlier) as a possible problem. No more, no less. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not fussed which way you go. PS: I don't know what you mean by "RL considerations". RL? SCHolar44 (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Glossary of steam locomotive components

Consensus will need to be gained here, as this was an undiscussed move under this discussion, which as it happens I object to. Please raise a formal move discussion if this move is required. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was enough consensus among several people's remarks for this to be a no-brainer. Personally I'm not bothered either way, so I defer to your objection and will not raise a formal move discussion. SCHolar44 (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]