Talk:Traction engine

Separate U.K. Article?
It seems to me that both the traction engine and steam tractor articles are mainly focusing on the U.K. construction and usage. I think that it would be better if there were separate pages for the U.K. and U.S. engines. Right now, it seems that traction engine is almost completely dominated by descriptions of assorted U.K. steam equipment, terminology, and other information. U.K. and U.S. engines differ greatly in their looks, terminology, and certain design features. 71.136.33.187 17:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Couldn't agree more! The main reason for the current UK bias is that the majority of the traction engine information on WP has been added by me, and, as a UK resident, my knowledge and information is entirely UK-based. I have been hoping that other contributors can add US information, and for home-grown products in South America, Africa, Asia... Different articles for UK/US practice may be possible in the future, but not until more non-UK information is forthcoming. How does a US-built traction engine (as opposed to a steam tractor) differ from a UK-built one? -- EdJogg 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay Ed, I'd be happy to do so. My thoughts are that the Steam Tractor article should be devoted to U.S. Equipment, seeing as that is the more common term in use here. It seems to me that since there is more U.K. information in this article, this would be the logical choice to mostly leave alone as goes U.S. info. As goes the regional manufacturers, perhaps they could be a subsection in this article? Spudmonster 04:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Due to the issues regarding terminology, both pages must continue to cross-refer each other. Feel free to adjust the text as you see fit, but what is there (in this respect) was added on the back of a suggested merge between the two articles, so is probably the minimum you can get away with. If there is sufficient text to warrant it in the future, we can always split-out something like Steam tractor development in North America


 * Also, must bear in mind that these machines were not restricted to UK/North America – traction engines resembling British designs were manufactured elsewhere in Europe, too


 * As described below, I think a separate page to list manufacturers worldwide is called-for, since these lists have a tendency to sprawl, and it gives us a common link to use for traction engine, steam tractor and steam roller, and possibly steam lorry too. (Haven't done this yet, keep getting side-tracked by my watchlist!)


 * EdJogg 11:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My idea was to have traction engine dedicated to U.K. development, with a brief description of north american development and a cross-link to Steam tractor and a note reading something like "For a more complete description, please read the Steam Tractor article". The Steam Tractor article would mainly focus on North American traction engines, and have a cross-link to the traction tngine article, with a note reading "For a more complete description please read the traction engine article". Also, both articles would have a link to the list of other manufacturers worldwide. Spudmonster 21:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We're thinking along the same lines, so I suggest you just 'be bold' and add your updates, and we can take it from there... ...it's easy enough to revert if it doesn't work.
 * EdJogg 22:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not doing anything yet Ed. I've been quite busy lately, and just haven't had time. Spudmonster 20:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's OK -- you'll see that I haven't done much here either. Other pages, on the other hand...
 * (Today I edited articles about a bridge, a railway line, a town in Wiltshire, and a character from an American radio series – all dirctly linked, and all because someone had left a typo in their edit!)
 * EdJogg 00:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merge: Steam Tractor into Traction Engine
I find it confusing with two articles. Yes, there where construction differences between European and Northamerican machines, but that is also the case for tractors with internal combustion engines. Moreover, not all UK-built traction engines/steam tractors where ploughing engines. I think it would be far better to merge the two articles and just explain how the terminology and construction details differ between Europe and Northamerica. Also, neither article mentions any of the German ploughing engine manufactures: Bosig, Heucke, Ottomeyer, Rheinmetall, Lanz, etc. --Sigmundg (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am also inclined to agree with you now, (provided that steam tractor redirects to traction engine). Since the previous discussions, the articles have changed, and what is left of steam tractor is a bit of a mess -- the emphasis on ploughing is historical, and predates my involvement. The omission of German manufacturers is quite simple: as stated above, my reference material is purely UK-focussed. I think that a separate section will be required to describe the different uses for the term "steam tractor", if a merge goes ahead. EdJogg (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I am doctoring the merge templates to indicate the proposed direction. Globbet (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have doctored them further, to point here! (Was on my ToDo list, honest, guv!) EdJogg (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to traction engine, then create a new article under steam tractor for the particularly British light steam tractor of under 5 tons ("light locomotive" was their legal name, but that's too easily confused with railways) that arose in response to a loophole in the UK's 1903 Motor Car Act. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Manufacturers - North America - Merge with Steam tractor?
There is considerable duplication between the manufacturer lists on this page and Steam tractor, probably because most of the US firms would have produced steam tractors at some time.

Are there any objections to the list on this page being merged to Steam tractor? An appropriate link and summary would be included here, of course - and similarly for GB manufacturers on that page back here...

EdJogg 10:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The WP guidance is that if there is no contention to a suggested merge, after one month, then the merge can be deemed 'approved'. So this 'merge' will take place in due course.


 * I have had a slight change of mind and now believe that the best approach is to create a list page, listing all the manufacturers, linked-in from both traction engine and steam tractor. The reasoning behind this is partially due to the overlap of the names used, and it will keep both pages shorter and tidier.  I propose to list by country and (for the UK) by county, as now.


 * I have not yet decided whether steam roller manufacturers should be included in the same list, or retained on their own page. If included, they should be identified in some way.


 * Steam lorry manufacturers were generally different companies from the (mostly) 'agricultural engineers' who built traction engines, so they will be kept separate.


 * EdJogg 10:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am having a problem I hope can be addressed. The tag is old and I could just "boldly" remove it but there is reasoning why I do not. I have seen several article that use "British" terms and redirects American English articles to these. If an article can be shown to be of British origin, and the title used an American derivative, then I do not see a problem with proper redirects, and inclusion of the difference in the article.


 * "Steam Tractor", in the United States, is a farm tractor ran by steam. Unless I am mistaken the term "Traction engine" would be unknown in the U.S. (to the general population)" and "Steam tractor" is a common word. One problem I have is that I have observed that American English uses words that are more specific than many generalized British words. An example would be the redirected Vintage vehicle, that was redirected to Vintage car. Vintage vehicle, or even automobile, would have been more appropriate, with the reversal of the redirect. This would include the common vintage truck, of which there are several articles or sections referring to this name, and many other vintage "vehicles", not specifically considered a "car".


 * I would like to explore this with anyone interested (and open minded with "Wiki-interest") and not just for arguments. I "do not" wish to get involved in something that introduces the idea in the need for an American English Wikipedia, and a British Wikipedia but differences in languages are a reason there are many such interpretations of Wikipedia. I hope my concerns are not misconstrued. I am seeking a compromise for an end result that does not alter or demean the languages represented in Wikipedia. I am wanting to know what the Wikipedia "standard" are concerning this. Otr500 (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you may have responded in the wrong section (if I was certain of this, I would have moved your post accordingly) as the business of the manufacturer lists was resolved many years ago by the creation of List of traction engine manufacturers.
 * I think your comment relates to the merge tags on steam tractor/traction engine, which have been in place for a long time. This is a tricky problem to resolve, although I think the suggestions in the preceding thread are the way to go. Anyone involved with editing railway-related articles on the English Wikipedia will quickly become familiar with the problems associated with differences between English and American English (sorry, Freudian slip, British English...), so I guess we are lucky here to only have this one term to worry about. There is a policy of using either British or American English in an article (as appropriate), and sticking to it, where possible avoiding words which could be misunderstood, so I don't think there is much risk of splitting into two Wikis. Incidentally, I have seen advertising copy for early North American steam tractors that called them 'traction engines'.(*) -- EdJogg (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (*) -- see 'Cornfield locomotive' below! -- EdJogg (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I did--thanks. I will address this under a new section (Word usage in articles, titles, and merges) for the future as it is an issue that has solutions. Again, thanks for the reply. Otr500 (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Cornfield Locomotive?

 * (In response to EdJogg removing the claimed alternative name 'cornfield locomotive' from the introduction...)

I'm not surprised that search engines don't return anything for "cornfield locomotive." They (the search engines) are not infallible, eh? That doesn't mean there's no such usage.

Just for grins, try searching for the phrase "jerk a lung," which is railroad slang for pulling out a drawhead or coupler knuckle. I learned (and used) that phrase during my many years in railroading. Are you going to say no one uses it because Google didn't return a hit?

BDD 03:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'd dare search for "jerk a lung", it sounds like the sort of phrase that might be blocked by our 'webwasher' filter...


 * I quite understand your feelings about Google, but I reckon that any 'alternative names' in the introduction should be in reasonably common usage, so using Google hits as a guide seemed a sensible way to gauge this. There are lots of articles about, and pictures of, traction engines / road locomotives / steam tractors on the web, so I would have expected at least some hits if the term was in common usage.


 * If you can provide a citation (preferably online, though this is, of course, not essential) then there is no problem including the phrase somewhere in the article, noting that "in parts of the US, traction engines were sometimes known as cornfield locomotives". Nevertheless, I don't think it's in sufficiently widespread usage to go in the introduction.  Alternatively, that sentence might be more appropriate in the steam tractor article, since that is (inevitably) much more US-biased.


 * Please forgive me for being sensitive over the naming issues. The terms traction engine and steam tractor are used fairly generically and interchangeably, yet there are certain machines which most definitely fall into the latter category (see the pic in the steam tractor article) and it is a delicate job maintaining the appropriate distance between the two articles. Please feel free to add information (and pictures) about the US machines, on whichever page. US traction engines had a distinct 'look' compared to British-built examples, and many US Steam Tractors/rollers had vertical boilers. Pictures would be good for readers to compare the designs.


 * EdJogg 09:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ironically, this page will almost certainly now be returned as a hit... :o)
 * EdJogg 09:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What we CAN use is the (entirely logical) term field locomotive. I have found a reference (with picture) to the 'legendary' 1895 Jacob Price Field Locomotive, which the sales blurb describes as "the most powerful traction engine made".  (You see the problem we have in tying down the names??)  It does makes sense to add this term somewhere in due course – and I'll include a link to this archive page from steam tractor.


 * Incidentally, I did find one other reference to 'field locomotive', in the intended context, in a crawler tractor forum...


 * EdJogg 10:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Names
For the UK keeping one list of names would probably be best for the Traction Engine, Tractors and Roller list as there are very few cases where a firm only made one of the products in that list and most of the major companies made all three.

The section on tractors doesn't reflect the impact that the changes in the law such as the Heavy Motor Car Act and other legislation had. When I get chance I will do something covering that for you.

Only just joined today so still finding my way around and getting a feel for where I can contribute.

Chenab 16:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The manufacturer list will appear one day – I've been consistently distracted elsewhere!


 * The history of steam-powered road traction is a complete mess on Wikipedia. If you care to look around, you will find that Vehicle has a lot about steam carriages – completely out-of-place in that article.  Steam car, Steam tricycle, steam bus also include some information about the history; and there's more at Timeline of steam power.  Much of the history is, of course, common to each vehicle type, so I would like to see these modified in order that all the history can be grouped into one article, and listed as the Main Article the others refer to, with only the vehicle-specific history retained.

EdJogg 01:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't looked at all of those - as you say it is a bit of a mess with the early steam carriage stuff being all over the place. Also it is interesting to see that steam bus doesn't mention Clarkson at all who is probably the most important in this country. Will see what I can do to add stuff as and when I get the time.

Chenab 10:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

End of manufacture?
I'm not knowledgeable about traction engines/steam tractors, and I began reading this article with avid interest. But something basic that doesn't seem to be present is a date range for the manufacture and use of these machines. When were they produced? When did production (largely) end? When was the use of these machines superseded by conventional (modern) tractors? Spottacus 01:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Guilty as charged'! The section on 'History' is woefully inadequate. I must stop editing everywhere else on WP and get on with researching it!


 * I cannot give a definitive answer to your questions, but working from memory, and from the 2004 Great Dorset Steam Fair show guide I can tell you the following, at least from a UK viewpoint.


 * It is difficult to be certain about the very first traction engine, but several manufacturers started in the 1850s: Aveling & Porter and Clayton & Shuttleworth being two of the first (and, subsequently, largest) builders.


 * Many manufacturers were still producing engines well into the 1920s, and some of the larger companies continued longer:
 * John Fowler & Co. produced their last showman's engine, the fourth of the Super Lion class, "Supreme" in 1934 (three have been preserved)
 * William Foster & Co Ltd were still producing showman's engines in 1938 (example 4nhp "John Michael")
 * Richard Garrett & Sons just made it into the 1930s. They built the last Burrell engines: the 5nhp road locomotive "Dorothy", the last but one Burrell, was built in 1931.
 * Marshall, Sons & Co.: 4nhp steam roller, "Major Henry", built 1931; 6nhp portable engine "Jenny", 1936.
 * Wallis & Steevens 'Advance' type steam roller, eg 8nhp "Lucy", built 1939
 * Foden were still making over-type steam wagons in 1930 (several of this age preserved)
 * Sentinel Waggon Works were making their much more advanced under-type steam lorries well into the 1930s, eg Sentinel S4 DKN 689, first registered 1937


 * I've given the names/regs since this will allow you to search the various databases for further information. (see External Links).


 * As for when they were superseded? I can give some rough figures:
 * Steam rollers were still in commercial use in the UK well into the 1960s, and I suspect that some soldiered on to the early 1970s
 * Showmans engines were still in use into the 1950s
 * Road locomotives were still in use during WW2 – I have a book which recounts one of the last major journeys by these machines, three hauling a large boiler, or similar, on a 100+-mile route over the Pennines in 1944. (It had taken that long for diesel-powered equivalents to match the strength and power of the big road locomotives.)
 * Large numbers of diesel tractors were built during the late 1930s and 1940s, and I suspect that this would have finally spelled the end for the agricultural engines – especially the ploughing engines, as diesel tractors were light enough to direct-haul ploughs on British soils.


 * There was probably some legislation in the 1930s that made steam road vehicles unviable – which seems to have been the story from day one. It is interesting to speculate how steam lorries, in particular, might have developed differently had the legislation been skewed in their favour...


 * EdJogg 10:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * James Lowther appears to have commercially operated a pair of ploughing engines (Windsor and Sandringham) for dredging into the 90s although I need to get my hands on a solid source (Old Glory Magazine, May 2010 perhaps). Haining in Ploughing by Steam lists 16 as still in commercial service in 1970 although at least 2 of those were in use for dredging (interestingly while he lists Windsor and Sandringham as survivors he doesn't have them down as being in commercial service).©Geni (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

One or two engines were put back into use for haulage during the Suez Crisis and steam lorries were still in use into the 50s. Strangely a few sets of ploughing engines were probably amongst the last used since they had advantages for dredging large lakes and at least one set worked commercially until a surprisingly late date. As far as showmans engines is concerned that will always be a debate even more so for some of the rides. For instance the set of Gallopers owned by the Downs family is still run as a going concern on the fairs by a showland family. Has that even entered preservation or is it still in its working life?

There was some legislation which is claimed to make things difficult although it was in response to pressures on the railways rather than to make things better for other road vehicles. Chenab (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agricultural engines
As these were 'most common in the countryside' I was hoping to see a little more information on them here, not just in their use for threshing but also for ploughing, pumping, etc. (I'm thinking of the Fowlers & Ransomes engines) Does anyone know a little bit more about them who could expand this area, it would help other articles like John Fowler (agricultural engineer) & the British Agricultural Revolution? Thanks Ephebi 19:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no proof of this, but the intersection between "people who are interested in traction engines" and "people who edit WP" would appear to be vanishingly small (it is currently writing this response :o) ). It is this sort of problem that leads to inconsistencies in WP coverage (consider how much 'popular culture' there is here).
 * Unfortunately, I'm no expert, and I have few books on the subject and not much time to edit. Contributions from other interested/knowledgeable parties would be most welcome!
 * EdJogg (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * excellent response - I can see the logic your reply... though it might be different if only someone could make a steam powered web browser... too much pressure on the download pipe guv'nor Ephebi (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Portable engines
Since a Portable Engine provides no "traction" as such shouldn't the section be removed and a seperate article created?7severn7 (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ideally, yes. Considering the scope of 'traction engines' as a topic, it is quite ridiculous that it only has the one page on WP. My intention was to expand until each major sub-type could have its own article. However, I'm a fickle thing and my attentions are frequently drawn elsewhere, which is why the article has been fairly static recently.


 * Portable engine already exists as a redirect here. And you could split it off as a stub, I suppose. If you can expand it further, even better -- remember there's a minimum size for a DYK entry (which we should be aiming to achiEve), and they must be proposed within 5 days of article creation or significant expansion.
 * EdJogg (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose DYK stands for Did you know but I don't see the relevance of that here. I agree that Portable engine should be moved to a separate article and I intend to do it shortly. Are there any objections? Biscuittin (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have now realised the significance of DYK. I have started to create the article at User:Biscuittin/sandbox.  Should we call it "Portable engine" or "Portable steam engine"? Biscuittin (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * WP's naming convention is to use the name by which they are most commonly known. Although "portable steam engine" is more technically correct, and, it must be said, less ambiguous, "portable engine" is the name normally used. In their day there was no other type of engine!


 * There isn't really a modern, non-steam, equivalent: nowadays you would use a "portable generator" or a "portable compressor", both containing an (IC) engine and some other function.


 * EdJogg (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have created Portable engine. Biscuittin (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional resources

 * http://www.planefacts.co.uk/traction/ -- close-up and general photos of traction engines, with a very little history (also covers steam wagons, rollers (link currently dead) and stationary engines). Not sure how much use it will be (not worth adding as an EL yet), but has a little historical commentary that might be helpful. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.localhistory.scit.wlv.ac.uk/Museum/Transport/Trains/Smith/JohnSmith.htm#menu Six-page history of John Smith of Coven, near Willenhall. Includes descriptions of very early designs for traction engines and ploughing equipment (C. 1858) together with some patents he took out for related equipment, including a pivotting boiler for use on hilly roads! Well worth incorporating somewhere. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Picture (see right) has been added to Richard Hornsby & Sons. I'm not entirely convinced that it is steam-driven, despite the large chimney, since Hornsby's were more into oil engines at this time. Nevertheless it is an interesting pic. It was sourced from this page which includes some other pictures and drawings of tracked-tractor experiments and armoured (steam) artillery tractors.
 * EdJogg (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It isn't steam-driven. Paraffin/kerosene.Hengistmate (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Crane Engines section in Road Locomotives
The comment that they have a small steam engine at the front to drive the crane is incorrect. I don't know of a single crane engine in the UK which was ever built that way. They all take power from the main engine and generally use a driven shaft to transfer it to a winding drum which may be what is being mistaken for a small engine.

The only other possibility is that someone has seen the Ransomes Sims and Jefferies engine 'Hooky' and got confused by the power steering arrangement which is unique to that engine.

Chenab (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it was probably me doing it from memory (tut, tut!), probably thinking of how a steam crane works. Now you mention it, I remember seeing this. I have revised the text to suit, although it is again done from memory and I cannot remember how the drive to the shaft is controlled relative to the crankshaft -- there must be some way of controlling it independently of the wheels.


 * I guess I need to get some detail photos at GDSF this year!
 * EdJogg (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

One of Our Dinosaurs...steam lorry
''Thread moved to Talk:Steam wagon (moved verbatim) following creation of the stand-alone steam wagon article. Seemed the right place for it. (Prior to the move, 'Steam Wagon' was a sub-section of Traction engine.)''

EdJogg (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agricultural traction engine example
Hello, would you be interested in adding a citation in the Agricultural traction engines section linking to this article http://www.culture24.org.uk/history+%2526+heritage/work+%2526+daily+life/industrial+heritage/art67039? It introduces the Empress of India, which is in storage at the Science Museum, Wroughton, her provenance and the unique set of Fowler 'roundabout' ploughing equipment she came with. Disclaimer: I work at Culture24. Let me know what you think! All the best, RosieClarke (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable, although it is really the ploughing tackle that makes it interesting, rather than the engine, so I would probably want to include it in a page/section on steam ploughing. As the only really interesting information (from Wikipedia's POV) regards the equipment provenance, it wouldn't be right to add it as an EL (which we have lots of), but as it is on this talk page (and in my loooooooooooong ToDo list) it won't be forgotten. Now, if the page had described/illustrated the tackle, THAT would be another matter! -- EdJogg (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - thanks for considering it! It's just a shame that the engine and tackle are not on display, but if you're particularly interested in the ploughing tackle it might be worth your contacting the curator and seeing if he'd tell you more about it / send you a photo! All the best, RosieClarke (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Merges; word usage in articles, titles, and tags.
If an editor runs across two or more articles where, 1)- they are essentially the same, 2)- one is a "parent" article, and the other should be merged into the other, 3)- one article is the older thus a type of precedence, or 4)- an article, regardless of lacking substance or being a stub, can be appropriately merged and especially if this is not challenged, 5)- the theme or subject of the contents of the merged article is not altered, then a merge should be requested or boldly attempted. If the opposite is true or there is a severe meaning difference, then a merge request is a hindrance to time otherwise better spent.

I have many other things to do to get involved in a crusade so I will air my concerns and let nature (and editors) take over.
 * Merge; Wikipedia has guidelines and editors need to at least be concerned, when considering a merge request, with the effects a merge might have.
 * Word usage: If there is a language barrier or definition problems (such as between these two articles, that can not be worked out in the article, then this is a good hint "not" to merge. I am concerned with ideas of merging articles from one language culture to another, where meanings are so different.
 * Title: A title that is not even in the same dictionary of languages than the one being proposed to be merged, and/or one where the article is location or language specific, should already include this knowledge in the title or the lead (I guess) and leave an article from another location or country (even if the meanings are close but no cigar) to stand.
 * Tags: In this case (as well as several others I have seen) a career (long term or "vintage") merge request (or any tag) is unnecessary and harms Wikipedia. I removed the merge requests from the two articles that were so old they were cyber-rotting. As far as I understand there is a statute of limitations (term) for these tags to hang around. I think I saw something (without looking) about 7 days without action, and also something about requests for extensions. This means a month is far to long and a year is ancient. It has been stated, "This is a tricky problem to resolve,...", but a solution is to remove inactive merge requests (or other dead tags) and let life (and separate articles) continue. I would propose if anyone has a problem with my deleting these tags the issue can then be brought up (new merge request) and I will be prepared to offer reasons why not. If I am in Wiki-error please provide me with the specifics so I might rectify my opinion deficit.

Disclaimer: The above is the opinions of one editor and may or may not be shared by others. Otr500 (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is in danger of being very off-topic, so I'll be brief.
 * Having looked at WP:MERGE and the associated help page, there is no time period mentioned. If it isn't an uncontroversial merge (which can be done immediately), I usually reckon 4-6 weeks on a merge proposal, to allow plenty of visibility to interested editors to support or oppose. In some cases, such as here, there is a clear need for some kind of action, so the persistence of the merge banners highlights the fact that the matter has so far not been resolved. Sometimes, of course, things just get forgotten about... ( :o) ) ...however, "there is no deadline". -- EdJogg (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, "staying on topic" (not understanding where ""being very off-topic" came from), thus not as brief, merge request tags are the topic. A "deadline", as you put it, but probably more appropriately a "time line", is essential and I feel covered by Wikipedia. Having also looked at Merge, I would direct you to look at Proposing a merge and you might see more than one instance of a time line; " After a period of time when discussion has ceased, and also, "In discussions where enough time has passed, normally 1 week or more, (a time-line which has been historically considered 7 days but can be more), and there has been no discussion or where there is unanimous content to merge, any user may close the discussion to merge and move forward with the merger. The second mentions moving forward with a merge but can be interpreted to conclude if there was a consensus not to merge or lacking a consensus. This should lead to requests for editor assistance, administrator assistance from the Administrators' noticeboard, outside help, or unless controversial, closing the merge request with a concluded "no merge".
 * The point is that I feel Wikipedia should not be cluttered with long term tags. If a request, template, or tag, has no use, is dead or outdated, uselessly clutters up an article, gives reason that might prevent contributions, or any other acts detrimental to the improvement of Wikipedia, then a solution needs to be attained. This does not mean that tags necessarily become outdated. It means that actions (or lack of) are usually outdated. If "the matter has so far not been resolved" then a timely resolution needs to be reached and not forgotten. Keeping a request just for the fun of it or possibly until a point when there "might" be a solution, serves no purpose and hinders the goal of improving Wikipedia. This is also covered under "WP:Consensus" as consensus can change. Your reference to there not being a "deadline" also includes view four that shows there is the need for, and in fact there are opinions that there are, certain time lines. The guidelines on silence and multiple references to being bold also dictate that there are time lines that can and should be implemented.
 * The article Tractor has a lead that covers the etymology with references (although lacking) and a section "National variations" that might be appropriate to refer or link to in both articles. All three articles lack sourcing. Maybe using "tractor" as a main article (See main article) is a solution. Both do need current tags because both articles are poorly referenced, as well as the tractor article. If a merge request is again placed I will be prepared to show why I feel the articles should not be merged unless you (or someone) can prove that the differences can be consolidated avoiding the following "Merge rationale"; Merging should not be considered if; #2)-The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles; and #3)-The topics are "discreet" subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short. I feel #2 and #3, will be a reason not to merge. I am not sure what protocol would be. Since I did commit an error should I replace the tags and seek a consensus thus conclusion? Otr500 (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I will try to be brief. The comment about being 'off-topic' is that this is the talk page for Traction Engine, and our discussion is (essentially) about WP policy on merging pages -- in particular with relation to time-scales -- rather than about merges involving this page (although I acknowledge that that is the underlying cause). I think it would have been better to conduct this discussion on my talk page, rather than here, and I was trying to avoid prolonging it.
 * I note your points about WP:SILENCE and deadlines, and will try to be mindful of them in future; however, there is at least one merge proposal I have suggested elsewhere that needs to remain in place. It has been agreed that the (high-level) articles DO need major re-work and re-arrangement (ie part-merge) but so far no-one has been able to address the concerns by putting them into practice. This is much more of a problem the larger the topic covered by the pages concerned. (I am not knowledgeable of the subject matter concerned, except to the level of understanding that shows the current page splits are wrong: I cannot tackle the merge myself.)
 * Regarding merges or further work on these three articles, I have more urgent things to tackle off-wiki at present and no time to consider major edits here.
 * EdJogg (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

oldest traction engine
the 1902 Ivel Agricultural Motors Ltd. was supposedly the oldest (petrol-powered) traction engine see http://www.biggleswadehistory.org.uk/Dan%20Albone.htm 91.182.235.144 (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the refined link.
 * First 'light tractor' rather than 'traction engine' -- see Dan Albone. But this 'first' probably should be linked from this page. -- EdJogg (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Steam Dinosaur" external link
The "Steam Dinosaur" external link describes the finding of the oldest surviving traction engine, and includes lots of history of early Aveling products. A link to its parent page no longer works, so there's a possibility that this page will also disappear in due course.

A 'facsimile' of the page exists at "Steam & Engine of Australia", but the original (with pictures) has been saved at the Internet Archive: here.

EdJogg (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Image at geograph https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4385645 ©Geni (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

HP / NHP derivation
I have reverted the following edit. I believe it is probably true for steam cars but not for traction engines. My understanding is that the NHP was calculated from cylinder size and was not an actual power rating. At the very least, a citation is needed and the first few words need to be changed.

"Actually, the HP (not nhp) rating refers to the continuous power which the steam engine is routinely capable of producing for a long period of time; it could be exceeded by several times for a short duration at the cost of a drastic increase in steam consumption. E.g., a Stanley Steamer engine, rated at continuous 20 HP, could easily produce up to 100 or even more HP for a short duration. Diesels and other internal combustion engines, on the other hand, are rated at maximum horsepower, which can not be exceeded any further."

--92.16.208.165 (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)