Talk:Norfolk and Western 1218

	Trains Portal
DYK	September 8, 2018

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 the Locomotives task force.

This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.

Photo[edit]

Not sure how to do this, but whatever editor requested an image of Norfolk & Western 1218, I have a line on some nice ones for you. The problem is that the original photographer knows nothing about WP photo submissions, and I don't know much. Are you willing to explain the GNU license to the photographer, if I put you in contact with him? If so, e-mail me (N'Awlins Contrarian, the original author). —Preceding unsigned comment added by N'Awlins Contrarian (talk • contribs) 05:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop labeling the A class the "finest" class ever[edit]

They were well engineered engines, but there is no such thing as the finest engine ever. Who's to say a NYC Niagra, or any of Chapelon's engines (which were engineering masterpieces in their own right) weren't also considered the "finest ever."

98.249.228.208 (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by American standards the N&W A's probably were the finest. I can't think of another engine which was better designed for the purpose it was intended for, unless maybe the N&W Y6 (and somehow a drag freight engine just doesn't inspire one to call it "finest"). Chapelon's engines, while engineering masterpieces as you say, were handicapped by their crank axles, which at the power outputs he intended, were doomed to be a maintenance disaster (as the SP found with their 4-10-2 locomotives). The relatively short lives of most of his engines masked their longer term weaknesses. His book is certainly an interesting read, tho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:CA70:AC11:2D33:FF63:FD0 (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think "powerful" is misused[edit]

I had originally written that 1218 was the "hardest-pulling", which referred (correctly, I think) to tractive effort. Power and "powerful" mean something different: horsepower at speed. Although 1218 clearly has a higher starting tractive effort than UP 3985, 1218 may well have developed less peak power than 3985 (or perhaps other locomotives)--I have not checked that. Does anyone else think the term should be reverted? N'Awlins Contrarian 03:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Power is a tricky concept with steam locomotives. Generally to a steam engineer, a powerful locomotive is one that can start a heavy train, and in that sense it's used correctly in the article. Power at speed would be drawbar horsepower (as opposed to indicated, cylinder, or boiler horsepower); 1218 was significantly more powerful than 3985 by that measure, and not far short of 4014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:CA70:AC11:2D33:FF63:FD0 (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Error in attribution[edit]

The paragraph that starts, "Chappell continues, 'In 1982, Norfolk & Western merged . . .' " I think is not quoting Chappell, but instead just attributing to Chappell part of the original article. I seem to recall that this was all or almost all my original text, derived informationally from Norfolk Southern public corporate filings and a lot from the Wrinn book Steam's Camelot, which is listed as a reference. Someone who has the Chappell book please check this. N'Awlins Contrarian 03:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)