Talk:Steam shovel

Image issues

The image-patrol seems to be active on Wikipedia, and images often get deleted unless tagged with a copyright-status tag. The available tags are shown at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, and one needs to be added to Image:Bucy4.jpg. If the uploader of Image:Bucy4.jpg got it from a U.S. source, the comments given with the upload indicate it should have the {{PD-US}} tag, which will save it. -R. S. Shaw 00:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It came from a Canadian source, also public domain

{{PD-Canada}}.

Trivia

Why is the Trivia section a subheading of the In Fiction section? If anything, it should be the other way around, or they should be seperate.

Verin 23:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed - a left-over from earlier 'fiddling'...

There have been a number of major edits to this article recently, all trying to arrange the available information in some kind of cohesive form. Unfortunately, a lack of non-US history means that this is still a work in progress...

EdJogg 19:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ruston-Bucyrus image

An image was added labeled "Still in use:Ruston-Bucyrus steam shovel in Lixouri/Greece" but it looks to me more like a drill-rig. In any case, there's no sign of steam power (probably diesel powered). Anybody else have an assessment? -R. S. Shaw 19:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a good picture of a nice old Bedford, but I agree, I don't think it belongs here! (From the radiator, it looks like there's some kind of an IC engine behind the cab.) -- EdJogg 22:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

yup its a poxy Bedford truck with a Keystone water drill rig. c. 1960. and not a steam shovel. On the topic why do we have lego pictures and a railroad rotary snowplow here as well? quite off topic.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfsorrow2 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 11 May 2007.

(1) So the Bedford pic should definitely go – incidentally, on the Bedford Vehicles page the same picture is present, but with the caption "Bedford with chassis by Ruston-Bucyrus". That cannot be correct, as the chassis must, by default, be Bedford (otherwise it is actually an "RB with a Bedford cab"!). Any ideas? We ought to update that caption too.

(2) The 'Lego' is actually Meccano, and it is a working model of a steam shovel, which also happens to be powered by steam. There is nothing wrong with using pictures of models to illustrate articles, especially for articles like this one where suitable images are very hard to come by. When we have a surplus of pictures, we can better decide how much it adds to the article.

(3) The rotary steam plough... Hmmm. Well, go back to Dec 2004, to the creation of the article, and you will see a single sentence: "A steam shovel is a large excavating machine designed for lifting and moving material such as snow." with a single picture depicting a "...rotary steam shovel...", and it has remained in the article ever since!

I have not removed it before because they are actually related to the early steam shovel designs. If you look at the picture of the Le Roy steam shovel you will see a machine that is rather similar layout to a rotary steam plough, but with a steam shovel cabin at one end rather than a rotary blade. Admittedly this is no real excuse for the picture to remain here...

EdJogg 09:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

San Diego and Arizona Railroad shovel a Marion?

I think this is a Marion shovel -- can anyone confirm? IMS, this was the type used at the Jerome, Arizona open pit crca 1920. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Think I've answered my own question -- see Image:MarioModel90 1908.jpg. So probably a Marion.

Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Could Not be Built

I am a little bothered by the several places where the article claims [a project] could not be built without steam shovels. These project could be built without steam shovels. They could be built with teaspoons. It would just have taken a lot more time, money, and effort. Perhaps the wording should be would not have been built, or could not have been built efficiently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmcc (talk • contribs) 14:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Both instances you refer to have had a {{fact}} tag for some time. I quite agree with your sentiments. The majority of the railways in the UK, and practically the entire canal network, were dug by hand: just needed lots of men and muscle! I don't think the US would have been significantly different in this respect.

Consider them gone! -- EdJogg (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Not steam

The image "Abandoned steam shovel in Zamora, CA" is very pretty, but it is a Diesel, not a steam.

Blow-up full size and look at the stack. It has the same flapper-cap many Diesels have. A steam boiler sized for this shovel would be much larger and would be open or capped. Small boilers do not have the draft to raise a flapper reliably.

Door-details and other tidbits also suggest this was built after Diesels replaced steam in most applications under 1,000 Horsepower.

Steam faded mostly because a Diesel is significantly more fuel-thrifty while working, and a Diesel can be shut-off and re-started as needed. Steam took time to boil and go to work, and this energy was lost on shut-down. The savings could cover the higher cost of oil over coal. Steam persists in very large sizes which are rarely shut-down, notably electric power plants. PRR (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)