Talk:Tender (rail)

Confused

Is this article about 'Locomotive tenders' or about something called a "Tender Locomotive" ?? I thought it was the former but the illustration is labeled 'tender locomotive', where a picture of just the tender part would seem appropriate. And should not the page be called 'Tender (Locomotive)' ?? (inquiring minds need to know :-) --AGoon 20:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the article should be renamed following one of your suggestions, I have yet to find a suitable image that shows just a tender although I have improved matters by showing a locomotive that is running tender first Oxyman42 14:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

I have proposed the above move because 'Tender (locomotive)':

• is a more precise description, because they are not general railroad cars but always associated with a locomotive.
• is a common UK/US/Aus/Can etc. English term rather than a specific US one
• the format XXXXX (locomotive) conforms to naming of most other Wikipedia locomotive-related items.

Because this article had this name a couple of years ago, this will need to be done by an administrator. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - that is also a more sane name, considering the number of links from the redirect: tender locomotive
  -- EdJogg (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• No support - This article was ludicrously titled "Tender locomotive" for the last 4 years, and nobody seemed to mind; I renamed it yesterday as "Tender (railroad car)." You can rename it again, but the tender is not part of the locomotive; if it were, you'd have a tank locomotive. But tenders can be detached from the loco, e.g., for maintenance work in shops; and as noted in the article, more than one tender can be attached to a locomotive. So it is a separate car, albeit a specialized one; but do what you like, guys, I'm over it. Textorus (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, valid point. Here's a better suggestion. Let's re-title it to Tender (rail) which has the advantages listed above plus it is not locomotive-specific. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Still support (!) the fact that no-one would ever use the term "tender (rail)" (except buried within a link) should not deter us from moving the page, as it is no worse phrasing than "crane (machine)" which is well-established now within WP. EdJogg (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Diesel Brake Tender

Class 37 + brake tender

Diesel brake tender at Healey Mills Yard (middle left of picture)

Another interesting forum posting about these historic vehicles: http://www.slawek.com/news/article/uk.rec.models.rail/116067 which better describes how they were actually used.

Could do with a picture, and some more details/better refs (although SEMG, Larkin and Bartlett are all good).

Is there a concept of a (non-diesel) brake tender? If you examine the photos you will see they are clearly named "Diesel Brake Tender".

EdJogg (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Should the main description of these vehicles be located here, where they do not fit well, or at railway brake, which already mentions them (briefly)?

EdJogg (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This [top] picture shows a Diesel Brake Tender, considering adding it even though it's small in thumbnail, any feedback? 88.109.7.206 (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think it's too small to be worth adding, although it's a good find. I discovered another at Commons [lower picture], but that's also too small. Neither is really suitable for some selective enlargement. Shame. Thanks for the suggestion. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Needs Clarification

Section: "Whaleback Tender" Quote: the forward portion of the tank thus formed held the water, while the remainder held the water. Need to clarify: which section held water? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1927metropolis (talk • contribs) 14:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted! Now fixed...following examination of quoted reference. EdJogg (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Corridor Tender

Under 'types of tender', there is no mention of the 'Corridor' tender, as used with certain LNER A3/A4 locomotives on non-stop runs from London to Edinburgh. (Wanted to link to this from Top Gear Race to the North....)

EdJogg (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A link to Flying Scotsman (train) would be far more appropriate as Corridor Tenders are described there, the Top Gear Race to the North did not use a Corridor Tender 81.178.164.174 (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If you read the Top Gear article, you'll see that corridor tenders are mentioned in passing -- specifically to note that the A1 (such as Tornado) was not fitted with one, and hence the Race to the North train would need to stop to change crew -- hence there is a need to link to the place where they are described. Since writing my earlier comment, much more coverage of corridor tenders has been added to WP. The best being at Corridor tender, although this article is also an obvious place to describe them (which it now does :o) ). -- EdJogg (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

German practice

Very good - and true - point, which very few Germans seem to want to believe! Maelli (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Condensing tenders

I feel that a new section about condensing equipment should be added

linked with

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/South_African_Class_20_2-10-2

and this little beauty...

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:SAR_Class_25_3511_(4-8-4)_Tender.JPG

--Grijalvo (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, which I have now dealt with. Mangoe (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)