Talk:South West African Zwillinge

Infobox
This might be for the infobox: Specifications Cylinder diameter	180 mm	Curb weight	2 kg x 7000 Stroke	240 mm	Operating Weight	2 kg x 8500 Wheel	580 mm	Maximum	20 km / h Grate area	2 x 0.3 meters	Performance	60 hp Heating Surface	2 x 14.29 meters	Length	8200 mm Water supply	2 x 830 l	Lokbreite	1600 mm Coal stocks	2 x 250 kg	Height above	2700 mm

ref: http://www.heeresfeldbahn.de/Zwilling/Zwilling.htm

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msrasnw (talk • contribs) 17:13, March 26, 2010‎

The stamp
The picture of the stamp is up for deletion (Msrasnw (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC))


 * The stamp picture has sadly been deleted. Does anyone know the copyright status of SWAfrican stamps - as they were issued by the "illegal" South African backed regine? Could South Africa - or indeed Nambia claim copyright? (Msrasnw (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC))


 * The stamp's image deletion review has failed. The logic of the deletion seems to have been that one is not allowed to use a non-free stamp image on an article not about the stamp.(Msrasnw (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

Deleted Image Holder
I have been in touch with both SA and Namibian Postal services about the stamp image. I am waiting for a response from the legal department of Nam post and have sent a link to the image and so is nice to have the deleted image's location shown. Hope that is OK. Best wishes? (Msrasnw (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC))


 * Removed image holder as they have still not been in touch. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

Page move doubts
I am not at all sure that the move from Zwillinge (locomotives) to South African Class NG Zwillinge 0-6-0T with the explanation Part of the South African Narrow Gauge locomotive family is a good move. Is this part of some wider scheme? I think I would favour a return to the original name or to one with a mention of GSWA or SWA or Namibia - all would seem somehow better to me? I'll wait a day or so for comments before moving back. Also I am not sure about the legitimacy of the nice stamp picture. The last one - I uploaded - was deleted as being non-fair use. (Msrasnw (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC))
 * Hi, about the move: I'm doing articles on all South African locomotives, by its nature mostly about SA Railways locomotives but also about its predecessors like the CGR, NGR, CSAR, IMR, OVGS, PPR, NZASM and more. And successors Spoornet and TFR. This includes engines like the Class NG 15, Class 24, Class 32-000 and Class 33-400 and others that were either relocated from SWA to SA, or acquired by the SAR specifically for use in SWA, or relocated from SWA to SA. Since the Zwillinge survived long enough to end up on the SAR roster I believe it should be included. Same with the Class Jung, Class NG 5 and more that I still have to do. As to mentioning more about GSWA or SWA or Namibia, give me some time - I'll get to that too. About what I'm in the process of doing, do take a peek at Category:Locomotives of South Africa. About the stamp deleter's argument: "The logic of the deletion seems to have been that one is not allowed to use a non-free stamp image on an article not about the stamp": That was faulty reasoning on the part of whoever deleted the image. The paragraph in the article IS about the stamp. André Kritzinger (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My worry is I think more that the article is about the German loco class - which was I think also used in Turkey and Eastern Europe - (and I guess it is always a bit annoying having an article one made moved - especially without discussion :) ). It is true the article was almost all related to GSWA and I have some very loose connections to Namibia (and not SA). Also I had a long unsuccessful battle to keep the stamp Files_for_deletion/2010_April_9 and at the DR here Deletion review/Log/2010 April 22- but let's see how this goes. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC))


 * And another thing...I am not sure how the appropriate Whyte notation should be for a Zwillinge (Twin) could it be 0-6-6-0 or 0-6-0+0-6-0 (as here)(just 0-6-0T doesn't really indicate the special nature of the loco )? (Msrasnw (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC))
 * I hear you, but... An article about the locomotive type as a whole would have to include all operators world wide. The way the article is written now is rather about its local service in SWA and in the SAR and maybe one should keep it that way. It could get tricky in situations where a specific locomotive type was used by several railroads. Examples: * In SA the GE U26C became Class 34-000, 34-400, 34-500 and 34-900, plus some built for mines that changed ownership back and forth between the SAR and industry, while a type GE U26C was also used in New Zealand (virtually identical) and elsewhere. The SA loco articles cover the four local Class 34 variants each by itself. An article on the U26C type, on the other hand, would have to cover the type as well as all its users. * Same would go with, for example, the American GP30 by EMD which was used by virtually every railroad in the USA, but often (usually) with differences between the models used by the different operators. About the other issue, let's not awaken the sleepers.... About the wheel arrangement: I (briefly) considered 0-6-0+0-6-0T, which is what it would be if permanently coupled. Except that it's not a permanent coupling like on a Garratt, which is a single locomotive. So I believe it's correct to treat it as two separate 0-6-0T locomotives (which they are). After all, they were often used in "Illing" mode too. André Kritzinger (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done (I think....) I found a few extra sources, added a picture and expanded it some. Hope you approve! André Kritzinger (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Splendid: by way of a present here is picture of a little engine in my nearest museum, built around the corner: Garratt Manchester Science Museaum.jpg.
 * I still think something like 0-6-0+0-6-0 (but I could only find the picture linked above as a source) might be nicer - reflecting their semi-permanent connection and am still a but dubious about South Africa having captured our Namibian SWA GSWA engine but ... not too worried. Best wishes and dankie! (Msrasnw (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC))
 * Ruffled some feathers with that one too, see South African Class GL 4-8-2+2-8-4. No, the 0-6-0T wheel arrangement is correct according to my two most reliable sources, Paxton & Bourne and Middleton. In fact, John Middleton lists it as an 0-6-0WT (well tank). The + is only used when it's a single locomotive, like a Garratt, or with most of our diesels with an inter-bogie linkage, eg Co+Co. See South African Class 34-400, where some are Co+Co while others have been modified to Co-Co. Off to bed now.... André Kritzinger (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)