There are a growing number of people who seem to intensely dislike the way that I run http://www.steamlocomotive.info and are quite forthright in telling me what they don't like. Every once in a while, I think that they might be right and this is one such instance. A visitor by the name of "Mike" posted the following with reference to a compressed air locomotive in Wallace, ID:



I don't exactly remember why we started including them. But would appreciate your input as to what I should do about these little critters.

Why can't people be nice, after all you are doing them a favor by compiling the information into one great site? In my opinion, they still are steam locomotives, just without rods, hey wait a second a shay doesn't have rods either and we call them steam locomotives. Doug, it is and always will be your site, call them what ever you want and ignore the d****d vocal minority. It sucks to put all that effort in to a site and let these people drive you to think you have done something wrong. Thanks for your time, patience, and effort in maintaing sites about preservation.

Mike Tillger

EDIT: I apologize for the inaccuracy of my response, I failed to take in that this was a compressed air locomotive, saw turbine and assumed it was steam even though I read compressed air. No excuses, just did not sink in.

Just change the name to
non.internal.combustion.gaseous.expansion.locomotives.com

Something like that could be in the fine print on the site. The site documents ALL steam locomotives of any type and all locomotives propelled by gaseous expansion that is not the result of an internal combustion process. After all, if you discovered that someone built a condensing locomotive but decided to use something other than water as the working fluid, it ought to be included.

Steve

Doug,

You do a great job on your site and it is an awesome resource to have access to. Keep up the good work and don't let the the negative people on the internet discourage you. Those people are everywhere and are never happy unless they are cutting someone off at the knees. I personally like your site the way it is and it has been very helpful to me. Thank you for all of your hard work!

I think everyone agrees that the Penn S-2, UP's GE steam turbines, the C&O turbines, and the N&W T-E-1 are all steam locomotives despite their prime movers and drives. These locomotives in Wallace just down the road from me are too, unique examples of alternative prime mover and drive systems and very worthy of your efforts to identify them. Just because turbines are poorly understood does not mean they are necessarily wrong. Thanks, Matt Janssen

Great job on your web site! And yes, I appreciate that you read and care about reader's comments, even if they might be a little rude or poorly composed.

illegitimi non corobundum

I cannot say how many times I've used the site in my research and upon looking at an engine I had never heard of, I learn later on that its an amusement park replica or small gauge or something.

It's less of a problem and more of something to keep remembering. I would suggest that old and new entrees state in the engine's heading that it is not the traditional full size (nee-over 2') steam locomotive. There are people who do take interest in these smaller locomotives and less typical designs, so it is fair to add headings to keep the two from becoming confused for each other. You have no idea how long I thought the Wisconsin Zoo actually operated a full size Atlantic and Pacific

Let me guess. You painted the site the wrong color???


It doesn't matter if they're right. It matters what the purpose of your site is, as decided by you.

I recognize that there's a problem of scope creep. If X is a wobbler and you include it, that makes Y a wobbler, include it and Z becomes a wobbler, and before you know it you're indexing B-52's. Where does it end? Again decided by you. A user would not be out of line saying "If X then perhaps Y", but they would be out of line telling you to exclude X.

SCOPE is a serious problem with your site, the world famous Surviving World Steam site, and Frank Hick's "Electric Cars Roster". There is no "Catch-all" site for all rail artifacts, which means if you exclude it, then it doesn't get documented at all. This leads to either being soft-hearted and having scope creep, or being cold-hearted and defending the boundaries against interesting pieces.

"The piece is interesting" is a perfectly acceptable reason to include a piece.

I've never found an issue with the site, personally. The fact that the message you posted reads like it was typed by a 6-year-old should be more than enough reason to disregard it, as it was clearly written by someone who doesn't appreciate the variety of steam power and instead attached the phrase "steam locomotive" to SP 4449, UP 844, NKP 765, and nothing else.

Are you thinking of the Ammonia powered street railway cars described in "Trolley Car Treasury"?

I would tell them they have 2 options.
1) Help contribute or
2) Stop viewing the site.

Doug,
It seems most respondents have missed the detail that you are referring to a compressed air loco.
I do agree with all that say "It is your site & you are the one who decides what is right.". One question I will ask is how difficult would it be to create a sub heading for critters? I would also say it is most important to gather and catalog the information and if someone doesn't like how you've presented it, let them make their own list. My opinion & worth what you've paid for it. mld

If you want to be 100% technically correct, a compressed air driven machine is not steam. So the question becomes just how technical do you want it to be?

Put a picture of said locomotive and a steamer on the same page and see how many folks really know the difference (or care.)

There is a small steam locomotive in one of the roadside museums in Lancaster Pa, that runs on compressed air because zoning won't let them run it indoors on live steam.

Leave it and make a note that even though it technically doesn't run on steam, it is in the same school of thought.

Later!
Mr. Ed

Jim, I wasn't even thinking ammonia but good call.

I've always thought that if someone was going to do new steam there are different types of engines (or should I say expanders) besides just turbine vs. reciprocating. Think of all the different types of compressors there are and that will give you some idea. Maybe there is something more suitable than turbine or piston. And since any new machine really ought to be condensing there are other possible working fluids that might be better suited than water depending on the temperatures and pressures involved. Maybe something from the Freon family. I don't know but it's possible.

But I've gotten off topic.

Steve