Talk:Salamanca (locomotive)

Name
Any ideas as to why this name? Salamanca is a city in Spain, so that is why this name used in a 19th century locomotive sounds quite intriguing...


 * "Named after a battle in the Peninsular War (1807-1814)", so it says in www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RAmurray.htm 15 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.39.50 (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Battle of Salamanca 1812 (same year as loco). 15 June 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.39.50 (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Was 'Salamanca' the first delivered by Matthew Murray ???
I found:

1812 - Matthew Murray / John Blenkinsop John Blenkinsop the manager of Middleton Colliery, Leeds decided to try using steam locomotives, which used a fuel readily available on site, to haul the coal from the colliery by railway into Leeds. He instructed Matthew Murray (1765-1826) of Fenton, Murray and Wood based in Water Lane, Leeds to construct a locomotive. The first locomotive built appeared in public on 24th June 1812. It is thought to have been named Prince Regent. There seems to have been a formal inauguration of steam traction on 12th August 1812 when a second locomotive was introduced. It was named Salamanca. Two further locomotives were built to work another portion of the railway. The first was named Lord Wellington and was delivered on 4th August 1813. The fourth locomotive was delivered on 23rd November 1814 and seems to have been known as Marquis Wellington. The locomotives cost £380 each, which included a royalty of £30 to Trevithick for his patent rights. Trevithick’s influence in the design is evident in the use of cocks to distribute the steam instead of using the more modern slide valves, which had been patented by Matthew Murray (28th June 1802). http://www.locos-in-profile.co.uk/Articles/Early_Locos/early2.html

Murray’s locomotive ‘Salamanca’. George Walker, 1814. In 1811, Murray was employed at the Middleton Colliery, Leeds, to produce 'certain mechanical means for the conveyance of coals, minerals, and other articles'. Murray designed four locomotives for the Colliery. Although they were expensive, and heavy wear appeared between the driving gear wheel and rack, they were the first commercially successful steam locomotives. Four machines replaced 50 horses and 200 men at the Colliery. This is the first ever painting of a locomotive. It shows the Salamanca, the second from four Murray’s locomotives. http://www.birminghamstories.co.uk/story_page.php?id=12&type=fo&page=2&now=267

Wdew (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Whyte Notation
I assume this loco is a 2-2-2. Unless there are any objections, I'll put this in. Tevildo (talk)
 * No, it's a rack loco: there were four carrying wheels, but no driving wheel: the central "wheel" was the pinion for the rack. It carried no weight, and was found on one side of the locomotive only. Whyte notation is unsuitable for such locos. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Whole page needs replacing
So much about the article seems wrong. Firstly the incorrect article title - the locomotive was named Salamanca and not The Salamanca. Secondly the locomotive's relevance - does it deserve its own page? Almost nothing distinguished it from the other three delivered in 1812-14. It was not even the first! There were definitely four (Enclycopedia Britannica confirms, via a link on the John Blenkinsop page - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/69274/John-Blenkinsop ). Thirdly, more information seems to have been added to http://www.locos-in-profile.co.uk/Articles/Early_Locos/early2.html since an above writer's quote when first raising the question of "whether the first". That source seems very knowledgeable, and describes how the locomotive Lord Wellington was sold on within one month (!) to Kenton & Coxlodge Colliery, which immediately bought a further two from Murray/Blenkinsop. Also in the same year (1813) Orrell Colliery bought three of Murray/Blenkinsop's locomotives. Thus it would be far more rational to create a new page titled Murray and Blenkinsop's rack locomotives, and just include details of Salamanca as a single para (or bullet point) within it. Sadly I have no time to do it myself at present, but it's surely the only logical solution to sorting out this misleading page. Similar thoughts, anyone? Pete Hobbs (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The first point is easily addressed - I've WP:MOVEd the page to Salamanca (locomotive), because Salamanca was already taken. I've also added to the op of this page and set yes on that. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! Wikipedia really does work surprisingly well. I was just discussing the whole concept and values and principles of Wipedia with my brother today, and mentioned that there are however some key things a contributor can't do, such as change a bad page title. But lo and behold! Ask and ye shall receive! Thank you, Redrose64. Plus "Yorkshirewatch" - what a clever idea to have Wikihelpers who take an interest in improving their local (virtual) environment. The response given actually makes me feel rewarded! Pete Hobbs (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)