Talk:4-8-2

---

Spain

--62.14.95.214 22:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)hello. the 4-8-2 locomotive type was also common in SPAIN (here, we call 2-4-1). In the spanish railways, from private companies to nationalizated RENFE, roll more than 200 locomotives of that weel arrangement correwsponding to five tipes. Magí Aloguín i Pallach

Thanks! I have attempted to incorporate this into the text. Have I got it right? —Morven 11:32, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, an anymouse has added a section on Spain recently (30 June 2013). I fixed up the grammar, etc. a few days ago but I would really appreciate it if someone could take a good look at it to make sure I didn't screw up some facts in the process... André Kritzinger (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

NPOV?

Is it just me, or is the edit by 210.246.8.40 not exactly from a neutral point of view?

Older text: "Contrary to popular belief, the 4-8-2 design originated in New Zealand, not the United States. The design was an obvious progression from the 4-6-2 "Pacific" type that had originated in New Zealand in 1901 with the Q class, and the first 4-8-2 was built in the New Zealand Railways' Addington Workshops in Christchurch in 1908. Designated as the X class, it was designed to haul heavy freight trains on the mountainous central section of the North Island Main Trunk Railway."

The edit: "Contrary to popular belief, the 4-8-2 design originated in New Zealand, not the United States. (There is no engineering connection between the New Zealand Q class 4-6-2 and the X class 4-8-2. The Q class was truly innovative in that the trailing truck supported a wide firebox. The X class had a narrow firebox and was a glorified 4-8-0, was not innovative, and went no further as a concept. The X were later rebuilt with wide fireboxes but were still not star performers. The X class were a 4-8-2 in wheel arrangement, but not in overall concept as a locomotive.)"

Glorified 4-8-0 perhaps (opinion anyway?), and it was an unspectacular performer, but not innovative? It was the first class built with the 4-8-2 arrangement, which I would consider significant and innovative enough. - Axver 00:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The use of language like "glorified 4-8-0" makes the article seem less of an objective account and more of an opinion piece. Perhaps it would be better to rephrase along the lines of "although the X class was the first 4-8-2, the trailing truck was positioned well behind a narrow firebox which sat above the driving wheels[1]. Later, more successful 4-8-2 designs were a progression of the classic 4-6-2 layout, which featured a wide firebox positioned above the trailing truck and behind the driving wheels." Zzrbiker 14:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, especially with a reference. <voice style="Picard">Make it so.</voice> Slambo (Speak) 14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Done! I think I might also add a bit more detail on the various French 4-8-2 types - they're surely worth more of a mention. Zzrbiker 04:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Stored information - Bulgaria

I omitted the technical specifications table from the article since I considered it to be more suitable for inclusion in a locomotive-specific article. Stored here for easy retrieval.
André Kritzinger 23:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

In 1941 Bulgarian State Railways (BDZ) placed an order with Henschel & Sohn – Kassel (Germany) for the building of 50 Template:RailGauge standard gauge express passenger locomotives of type 2′D1′h3S (axle arrangement 2-4-1, simple steam expansion, superheating, 3-cylinder, fast train service), capable of hauling heavy passenger trains over the often severe profiles of Bulgarian main lines with gradients up to 2.8% (1 in 35.7). The first two engines were delivered by the end of 1941 and quickly proved the correctness of the specification of the BDZ engineers, who had previously experienced the insufficient power and some construction problems with classes 01 (1′D1′h2S) and 02 (1′D1′h3S). Next year mass production began, but was interrupted by war restrictions introduced by the German authorities; delivery ceased before the order was filled. Only 10 more engines were built and delivered, at the end of 1942 through the beginning of 1943, so the total number of the new BDZ class 03 remained 12 engines (03.01 – 03.12). After 1958 they were gradually converted to mixed fuel oil and coal firing, which resulted in improved steam production and facilitated service, particularly on mountainous lines. For about 35 years of use they showed excellent performance and minor problems (oval wearing of leading axle's inside crank). One of these machines, 03.12 (serial No. 26575) after factory repair was preserved in the depot of Gorna Oryahovitsa and is now completely restored and returned to operation under steam for tourist trains. Snimka.bg Picture Gallery

Technical specifications:

Class	03
Numbers	03.01 - 03.12
Gauge, mm	Template:RailGauge
Type (UIC)	2′D1′h3S
Type (BDZ)	Б2-4-117
Builder	Henschel & Sohn - Kassel
Year	1941-42
Steam pressure, kg/cm2	16
Superheater area
Heating area
Grate area
Cylinders no. x dia. x stroke, mm	3 x 500 x 700
Driving wheels diameter
Axleload, t	17.3
Adhesive weight, t	69.2
Total weight, t	179.18
Tender type	2′2′T28
Coal, t	13
Water
Total length
Total height
Tractive effort, starting, kN	221
Tractive effort @ 20 km/h, kN	191
Train haulage rates, t:
On level	1930
On 10‰ (1 in 100) gradient	825
On 25‰ (1 in 40) gradient	390
Max speed, km/h

ČSD‘s class 475

One of the most famous Czech steam locomotive classes yet not on Wikipedia. Do you think they’re notable enough for an article? 199.192.122.199 (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Illm; — Template:Sister-inline

I would expect so. There are a couple of problems: Finding a Czech reader who is able to write such an article, and can make enough use of the Czech language sources to have a good understanding of their history. Secondly, demonstrating that WP:NOTABILITY here on en:WP, by the use of English language sources or enough trust in non-English sources. Note that sourcing standards on en:WP are generally higher than on other Wikipedias. An article in good standing elsewhere might not survive here.

It is, in principle, possible to do this entirely in English, by using automated translation of other language sources. Yet I've not seen that happen in a long time, without the article being deleted pretty rapidly. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)