Talk:Empire State Express

Facts please

Please put FACTS on this page and not US nationalist propaganda. Most of the claims of the performance of this train are not believed outside the USA. But they have been presented here as truth. Oxyman 00:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tool for Education or American propaganda

Is Wikipedia a resource for education and carrying FACTS or a tool for American propaganda? I have edited out reticules claims by Americans in the Land speed record for railed vehicles and Empire State Express only to have arrogant Americans delete them and accuse me of pov can we have a neutral observer look at these sections Oxyman 02:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am asked for a citation when I say the 100mph claim is not respected outside the USA, where is you citation when making these claims?Oxyman 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The proper process would be to ask for the citation to be made. However, since you did not, we reverted back to the last version that did not include unsourced POV. Now, though, I have located and included a source. Unfortunately, you have already violated WP:3RR. If you had simply been willing to discuss the change, we might have avoided this mess in the first place.

As it stands, the statement is now cited, which may require rewording that paragraph slightly. If you still wish to add your assertion (provided an admin has not already blocked you), please provide a citation first. -- Kesh 03:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The term unofficial timers probably means that they can't be trusted! Speed should revert to what the neutral observer Niels states, I won't do this as I'll be accused of insulting Americans by users including Kesh. Oxyman 05:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

citations are needed on the following two statements "observers claimed to have clocked the train at 112 mph, or 180 km/h." "The Express was recorded traveling at 121.5 mph (195.5 km/h) during an exhibition run between Batavia and Buffalo on May" I brought this to peoples attention but this was removed without discusion by User:Kesh. Oxyman 05:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations have been provided. The timers may be unofficial, but the "claim" is made. Since you insist, I've also placed the cite in the first instance of the claim. -- Kesh 17:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not surprisingly given your arrogant manner up to now you have written the article so that the casual observer will think these "unofficial" claims are fact it should be clear to the reader that these are unofficial claims, after all is Wikipedia a source of facts or American arrogance such as that displayed by you. An American may say that the claims can be trusted but that is seen as ridicules outside the USA. I request that this article be edited by a non biased person Oxyman 17:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Oxyman 17:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

so is it ok to put "unverified information" in Wikipedia so long as it has an American bias? Oxyman 17:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page for a reply. Given you are copy & pasting this everywhere, I'm not going to explain myself repeatedly. -- Kesh 18:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"No. 999 entered service in May of 1893, making the trip from Syracuse, New York to the Chicago World's Fair. The Express was recorded traveling at 121.5 mph (195.5 km/h) during an exhibition run between Batavia and Buffalo on May 10, making No. 999 the fastest-moving manmade invention of its time and the first object on wheels to exceed 100 mph (161 km/h)".where in this statement is it mentioned and visible to the casual observer that this is an unoficial claim? Oxyman 19:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I use copy and paste if that is the most appropriate way of posting information, Is that OK? Please realize that you are arrogant and stop putting thinly veiled insults everywhere, at least I am open about my insults."No. 999 entered service in May of 1893, making the trip from Syracuse, New York to the Chicago World's Fair. The Express was recorded traveling at 121.5 mph (195.5 km/h) during an exhibition run between Batavia and Buffalo on May 10, making No. 999 the fastest-moving manmade invention of its time and the first object on wheels to exceed 100 mph (161 km/h)".where in this statement is it mentioned and visible to the casual observer that this is an unoficial claim? Oxyman 19:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC) There you go with the reductio ad absurdum again - just calm down and think logically, stop making the silly, rash statements. It's mentioned at the bottom. You see the little number next to the end of that sentence that you mentioned? Like this: "making No. 999 the fastest-moving manmade invention of its time and the first object on wheels to exceed 100 mph (161 km/h).[1]" You see the little number one there? Click on it. It'll take you to the bottom of the page, showing you a link to a source in the references section below this comment (John Lienhard, Rain, Steam & Speed: Inventing Powered Motion) for that statement. This is what I was talking about earlier - the "to cite sources (give links to external, neutral and reliable evidence to support any points you make, see WP:FOOT for how to do it)" bit - this is how you use WP:FOOT. If you don't agree with that source, then discuss it politely on the article talk page, and stop being paranoid. Remember, There Is No Cabal, we are just trying to help. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that aspect of wikipedia, the Arrogant insulting [user:Kesh] has written The article so that the casual observer will be mislead into believing these are official or credible claims wich of course they are not, the claim lacks vital caveats I would be happy if it was clearly visible when reading the article that these are unofficial claims. I thought Wikipedia was about credible information not American propaganda. The Empire State Express article is at present just a tool for Americans to rub their ego's the minimum that should happen is there be a disputed.

banner Oxyman 22:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this banner is "more accurate" then the one I suggested you may notice that the information in the banner doesn't match that written in the artice which claims a top speed of 121 mph

it appears that —Vanderdecken∴ is a sock puppet of userKesh. as the arrogance and insults coming from the users are very similar Oxyman 00:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an extremely serious accusation to make. I am not using sockpuppets, and if you take it up at Wikipedia:Requests for Checkuser, it can be proven that you are wrong. -- Kesh 00:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, I have updated the section in question to make it clear that this was an unofficial timing. If Oxyman wishes to dispute the remaining portion of the paragraph, please provide the citation and requested addition/change to the paragraph for alternate claims. I'm guessing you're referring to the Flying Scotsman that was added to the other page in question? If so, I would have no problem with adding a properly cited addition here. -- Kesh 00:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a straightforward story but the controversy about this locomotive on Wikipedia points out the limitations of online resources. The story as reported here is still full of misinformation, and even some of the online references have flaws.

The reported speed of the 999 was timed by reporters, train officials, and others designated by the railroad to record the speed between specifically surveyed milesposts during the record breaking attempt. At that time there were no "official" timers or a recognizing body. That does not mean that the event was not recorded by multiple witnesses who have verified the speed obtained for a short straight level section of the track near Batavia. It is about as official as you are going to get. Unless someone has details of an unknown record breaking attempt by a locomotive elsewhere at or before May 10, 1893, this would have been the first time a manmade object travelled faster than 100 MPH.

The overall speed between stations was a record as well, but the locomotive could not maintain 112.5 MPH the entire trip, and this is noted on Catskillarchive reference. The Genessee County reference incorrectly gives a story about the record attempt being an ad hoc last minute trip, when in fact this locomotive, and the previous record holder were specially built for the record. In addition it notes a 69 mile trip from Rochester to Buffalo took 68 minutes and incorrectly gives an estimated speed as 102 MPH. Simple math would indicate that the speed was about 1 mile per minute or approximately 60 MPH. This was not the record attempt however. It should also be noted that many books about railroads of this era describe trains especially out west that routinely achieved 60 MPH. This did not dispel then current fears that high speed would cause black out by sucking out the air out of someone's lungs.

It should be noted that George H Daniels who was in charge of public relations for the railroad asked the railroad's Master Mechanic William Buchannan to design the 999 to exceed the speed of his previous record holder which obtained the average speed of 61.4 MPH between New York and Buffalo in 1891. The 999 was built along with several similar locomotives for the 1893 Worlds Fair and Columbia Exposition. The sister locomotives (called Buchannan type) were all American type 4-4-0 and had smaller 70 inch diameter driving wheels. The sister locomtives were on display or worked in Chicago during the fair. The 999 was to haul visiters from New York to Buffalo on the railroad mainline which was part of the way to the fair. Charles Hogan was designated the engineer for the speed attempt. The Catskillsonline reference gives excellent details about the consist, the route and grade and other relevent information. It should also be noted that the record attempt was with a full train, and not a stand alone locomotive, which most likely would have gone much faster than while pulling a full load.

The locomotive was replaced within 6 years of the record by more powerful (if not as fast) steam locomotives with more driving wheels. The 4-4-0 American style was at the end of it's useful life on mainline railroads, with bigger trains and steel railroad cars becoming more common. In 1899 the 86 inch drivers were replaced with 70 inch diameter wheels, and the 40 inch truck wheels replaced by 33 inch diameter wheels. She was put in local passenger service on the Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Division (not part of the mainline). In May 1905 the boiler was replaced witha modified design. In 1913 the number 999 was changed to 1086. In 1923 the remaining components of the locomotive, which would have been the frame was "done over" and the number 999 was restored. Thre was slight resemblence of the locomotive when exhibited at the New York Worlds Fair in 1940 to the original. Apprently the locomotive was in use until 1964. The current locomotive on display in Chicago does not have the original boiler or correct size drivers (or presumably the truck wheels).

There are many books which have more details of the story, I would recommend "Yonder Comes the Train" pages 354 and 355 by Lance Phillips. baronvon

It should be referred to with less certainty as it was not 100% certain and is possible for errors to be made although the estimated top speed i believe was possible it is highly likely that it may have been over estimated by a margin. For this it the city of Truro's claim is also open to debate. As for not being recognised outside of America generally it is not as several trips in search of preserved steam in Germany,France,Italy,Benelux Thailand and China indicate that the claim is not widely regarded. One Ex DR driver i ended up talking to about this is of the opinion that it was not feasible in design. However there is fair amount of anti amercan prejiduce in these countrys i will admit that. Though Steam Railway (Jan 94) has some very convincing arguements against and also the sadly defunct Dampflokomotiven have some good evidance against. Celticosprey

It should be noted that journalists from competing newspapers were on the trip. It is not likely that they would report the exact same time independently unless they also measured something extremely close to it. If there was a major doscrepency between the unoffical speed and the official speed, or even differences between different reporters timekeeping this would have been reported. This was in addition to the official time keepers aboard the train and on the sidelines. As to feasibility, you may as well question whether the French TGV can go over 100 MPH. Europoeans have achieved a lot, there does not seem to be a need for reasonable people to question a documented achievement, no matter where you are. The Empire State Express set a record it was designed to achieve at the time it was done in 1893 and it is a matter of record. Whether someone in the US or elsewhere chooses to believe it or not is their problem.baronvon

Ok understood got the wrong impression though as for the tgv going faster than a hundred well if a castle could do it..... Nah just joking but in terms of aerodynamics it does look a bit suspect but if the Truro (Possibly Did) or a castle could do it then no reason why not. One query though why does the article quote two different tope speeds one of 121.5 mph the other 112.5 is this a typo? Celticosprey

Regarding claimed speed there must be a typo if two different sppeds are listed in the article. All of the reference books state 112.5 MPH. baronvon

Refutation of Speed Record

The inline citation for the 112.5 MPH record is for a page which is not specialized on the subject and simply mentions it. Before reading this article I had read this one[1]which thoroughly refutes this claim and many others. Therefore, I honestly think the 112.5 MPH should be mentioned as what it is: An unconfirmed (or, more strictly, proved wrong) popular belief that justifies its fame. Keep in mind it took 30 years to equal that speed with accurate measurings. What do you think?--Ruiz de Elvira (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick search for other documentation on this speed record claim (Google search for "'Empire State Express' record") comes up with this link: GREAT SPEED Off THE CENTRAL.; Empire State Express Engine Travels at the Rate of 112 1-2 Miles an Hour. (New York Times; May 12, 1893). I've added the ref to the article, and I'll see if I can find any further documentation in my reference library. Slambo (Speak) 22:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Pure Propaganda

It is not very likely for a steam loco to reach 112.5 mph with only 86" wheels. This "record" is only known in the U.S., so is the "141.2 mph record" of the S1 # 6100 Penn. RRd. The Class A was said to run above 209 km/h, but every time it was clocked, the speed reached a mere 181 km/h. German and British locomotives were clocked correctly. The 05 002 (wheels 2.3 m) ran 200,4 km/h in 1936; the A4 Mallard (wheels 2.03 m) reached 201,2 km/h in 1938. So stop the American propaganda. This is NOT an American encyclopedia. --84.141.1.23 (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

From the text... "... observers claimed to have clocked the train at 112 mph, or 180 km/h." with references pointing to "GREAT SPEED Off THE CENTRAL.; Empire State Express Engine Travels at the Rate of 112 1-2 Miles an Hour" (PDF). New York Times. 1893-05-12. Retrieved 2007-12-13. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

The NY Times link is a scanned copy of the article published in 1893. If the NY Times is not a reliable source, then we're all in trouble. Slambo (Speak) 13:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Spurious information about NYC 999

The article quoted and referenced at http://www.co.genesee.ny.us/dpt/historian/ese999.html is full of spurious information. In particular the technical information about the loco, where it is claimed that:

The construction of this 37 feet long engine was by hand with chisels and hammers...

This is nonsense. By the time 999 was built extensive use was made of machine tools in locomotive workshops - the NYC was an enthusiastic adopter of machine tools to speed up production and lower costs. In reality the use of hammers and chisels would be limited to fitting and fettling the engine once the major components were completed and the engine was being erected. But to state that major components such as the boiler, frames, cylinders and wheels were made by hand indicates that the author of the article knows nothing of contemporary US steam loco building practice and methods.

"and was the first of its kind to have brakes applied to the front trucks"

Again, this is nonsense. At a pinch, it may have been the first NYC 4-4-0 to have brakes on the pony truck, but that's about it.

The overall impression this article gives is that it's a puff piece, intended to make the locals of Genesee county feel good about their history. It doesn't present as a reliable source to an informed reader.

As for the claim that 999 attained 112mph, I'd say anyone familiar with 19th century steam loco design and practice would just smile and shake their heads at that. It's interesting that the only people who believe this are those without any background in, or experience with, operating steam. Leaving aside the arguments about the accuracy of the timing, the design and characteristics of the loco are all the evidence needed to refute the claim.

And while we're at it, the NY Times is only as reliable as the reporters who filed the story on the day, and since none of them were experienced in train timing, the story should be treated with great skepticism.

Dullsteamer (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The unsourced information about the 3,000 22" gauge replicas seems very suspect too. Website

http://www.steamlocomotive.info/F122002.cfm

refers to just FOUR 22" gauge 4-4-0s by Cagneys, out of a total of 1,300 locos of all shapes and sizes that they built. However, this article does at least confirm the existence of the San Francisco Zoo engine.

8474tim (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)