Talk:2-10-4

Re: construction roster

Okay, I know that in the CGW entries of the construction roster the number series 880-882 falls within 865-897. The source that I got the information from, Farrell's book, lists them that way. I don't know if the three locomotives were in accidents or whatever in 1930, but since they're listed that way in the book, that seemed the best way to list them here too. slambo 23:46, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

ISBNs

I had to look it up again to verify the number. The ISBN for the Farrell book no longer matches my own copy, which has 915713-15-12 in large letters on the back cover and on the title page (and also on the cardboard outer slipcase), which carries the copyright date of 1988. However, the ISBN in the article now matches what I see on Amazon, which is listed with June 1989 copyright date, so the number must have changed between the copy that I have and this copy on Amazon. Slambo (Speak) 14:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look up the Jack Farrell book at catalog.loc.gov (Library of Congress) it gives the old ISBN 9157131512 but it says 'ISBN Cancelled'. There is no authority at LOC for the NEW ISBN that Amazon has which is 9990720177. To avoid all future robot corrections it might make sense to completely remove the ISBN from the entry for Jack Farrell's book. The publisher might have reissued the book under a new ISBN and then forgot to register the number properly. EdJohnston 23:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

For the Farrell book, both the OLD and the NEW ISBNs are invalid according to isbn.org/converterpub.asp. I have marked it as 'No ISBN available'. Please update the Farrell reference if new information is found. The Westcott book is OK. EdJohnston 01:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking further, I didn't know those resources. I checked the book in my personal library to make sure that I hadn't made a typo when entering it. Slambo (Speak) 01:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Rework of 3829

I was bold and reworked the section dealing with the Santa Fe's original 2-10-4. If it doesn't get reverted I will add citations. I may continue adding citations and adding to the article--Bozokansas 00:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I may have been a little eager on the revert button, so I'll continue the discussion (which may seem a bit "bulletish"). Phrases like "test mule" are unencyclopedic. Don't use apostrophes for plurals, even after numbers and abbreviations; the current Trains WikiProject style guide is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Manual of style. Don't use weasel word phrases without citing verifiable resources. Don't link to disambiguation pages (like firebox), follow the disambigs to the proper link and link to the appropriate page directly (firebox in this case). Slambo (Speak) 12:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive advice. Test mule may not be the right word but prototype is not either, 3829 does not fit the definition of prototype. Although it is the original type it did not serve as a typical example or standard for future 2-10-4 locomotives (no other road had a 2-10-4 that was dimensionally identical to their 2-10-2 design with the exception of the trailing truck). I have removed any weasel word phrases in my revision and edited the article again. The firebox edit was someone else’s. Please review my revised section, regardless of it being accepted the original 3829 section needs to be reworked (I would be happy to discuss further if desired). Respectfully--Bozokansas 06:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't able to stop by yesterday with comments on the updated section, but I think it gets the information across much better now. I made one minor grammar update to the text. All that's really needed for this text now is verifiable references. Slambo (Speak) 12:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

2-10-4 in South Africa?

There is a claim in the main article that South Africa had 2-10-4s; but with no citation. I know of 4-10-2T rebuild to 4-8-0 (13th Class) but nothing on 2-10-4s. Maybe the writer was confused with Mocambique's 2-10-2, which operated into Swaziland - but that ain't South Africa. If no citable evidence of 2-10-4s then the claim should be purged. Tonyob 04:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No 2-10-4 tendered locos in S.A.Laav 05:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

See South African Class 21 2-10-4. André Kritzinger (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Added new image

I moved the first image (of Santa Fe 5000) to the Santa Fe section of the article and added a new image. I feel this image is better suited for the top of the article as it is a side shot and demonstates the 2-10-4 configuration. I searched the interent for a copyright free 2-10-4 of another road and only found a CB&Q image that was too small to be useful.Bozokansas 14:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Survivors?

How many of these survive? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I added a section on preserved locomotives in North America which probably accounts for the type worldwide?--Bozokansas (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Most powerful in the British Empire?

This claim for the Selkirks doesn't stand up - at least, not as written. The East African Garratts were more powerful. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)