Talk:Union Pacific 9000 Class

	Trains Portal
DYK	April 23, 2006

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.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

Merge

I suggest merging this with Union Pacific 9000 Class, since those were the only class of 4-12-2 locomotives. In addition, this article goes into more detail. Expanding the other one would essentially result in two identical articles with different names. The question becomes which title to use. Hellbus (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. WuhWuzDat 03:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong choice, surely? The article is specifically about the Union Pacific 9000 class whereas the title suggests that it is about the 4-12-2 wheel arrangement in general. The article should be at "Union Pacific 9000 Class" and "4-12-2" should either be a stub, a redirect or even not exist at all since there's nothing to say about the 4-12-2 wheel arrangement beyond that it was only used in this particular class. Dricherby (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cranked front driverset

> There has been debate as to whether the first driving axle of the 4-12-2 was cranked to provide clearance for the main rod connected to the second axle. Union Pacific drawings show no such crank on the first axle, and the Railway Age article says "The 67-inch drivers permit the use of a straight axle on the front drivers..." The spacing between the first and second axles was increased by 18 in (46 cm) to provide clearance. Based on the published dimensions, this means at its closest the centerline of the inside rod was 11.645 inches from the centerline of the first axle.

....Why is there a debate about this at all? Just crawl underneath the damned thing and have a look. One unit was preserved and is on open display to the public. There's no need to debate it or pick through drawings, just have someone local to the display drive out there, stick their head underneath the frame, and have a looksee. Maybe snap a photo or two for the Wiki page while they're under there. Simple solutions, people, and hell, I'd drive out there and do it myself if I lived local to the display. 2602:306:83C4:78F0:2502:CBEE:4828:9DCD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not unheard-of for amateur enthusiasts to believe they have an interesting new insight into something and it’s not always dissuaded by mundane details like contemporary accounts, builders plans, and photographs. Come to think of it, a lot of history books fall into the same category, but the my point is that a photo that shows a straight axle will only spawn a revised thesis that the prototype differed from the rest of the production run. The obvious fact is that the cylinder is placed and angled to make it possible to avoid the 1st axle.

How the designer chose to shape the push rod and whether or not that required something interesting to be done to the first axle to maintain a safe clearance is distracting but not really important. If i had to do it, and the clearance was too tight for any feasible piston location I’d shape the push rod (a lot) before I’d crank the axle. It’s tup forged by craftsmen so a little more shaping is cheap and it’s not much of a challenge to keep it stiff enough. A cranked axle has a lot of points where stress concentrates making a casting all but impossible to stress relieve (anneal) adequately so there’s no cheap starting point and it’s very expensive to machine a large cranked axle from a solid bar, so there’d be a lot of push back on a design that had a second cranked axle to get rid of it. Personally, my greater concern for the design comes from the exhaust sound on the audio recordings, the center cylinder sounds like its timing is off when the loco is unloaded it stinks when it’s loaded and it’s awful at track speed. it seems to suffer from all of the ills ascribed to the funky valve gear design that was used. For the center cylinder PolychromePlatypus (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Union Pacific 9000 Class: Moving to the preexisting redirect as the proposed name appears to be an adjective. (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4-12-2 → Union Pacific 9000-series – As there is only one locomotive class with a 4-12-2 wheel arrangement, and the article spends most of its time talking about that class, it makes sense to rename the article to specifically be about that class. Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 06:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"9000-series" appears to be an adjective, so it seems like this should either be Union Pacific 9000-series locomotive or Union Pacific 9000 series. Alternatively, there is a preexisting redirect at Union Pacific 9000 Class. Dekimasuよ! 06:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.