Talk:MLW M-420

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on MLW M-420. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090913184851/http://cnlines.ca/CNcyclopedia/loco/loco_r.php to http://cnlines.ca/CNcyclopedia/loco/loco_r.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225131145/http://cnlines.ca/CNcyclopedia/loco/mlw/ to http://cnlines.ca/CNcyclopedia/loco/mlw/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225131145/http://cnlines.ca/CNcyclopedia/loco/mlw/ to http://cnlines.ca/CNcyclopedia/loco/mlw/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Technical Reference source contains information directly contradicted by primary sources

this source: https://www.thedieselshop.us/DataM420.HTML which was used in the infobox (and perhaps elsewhere) contains technical information directly contradicted by various primary and secondary sources (MLW corporate advertising material, CN mechanical department data book, etc). While there are of course variations over the build run of locomotive models (for example the P&W order using Type B trucks instead of the Hi Ad trucks) I am extremely doubtful there was any M-420 model with 2400 horsepower, as the model with 2400 hp was the similar M-424. DocTrench (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Quite frankly I don't think it's Wikipedia's place as an encyclopedia to provide extreme levels of technical detail on locomotives. We should be covering the key features which are easily verifiable (prime mover, dimensions, horsepower, production history) but I don't think it's really relevant to cover obscure details like the sandbox capacity, lubricant capacity, cylinder size, etc, unless these are called out in secondary sources. Another issue that comes into play, and we're seeing it right now, is that when we get into high levels of technical detail sources may not agree. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh absolutely, it feels more than a little unnecessary to list fuel tank capacity or cylinder stroke and all that, if you want that information it's better to look for other sources. As to your second point that becomes a significant problem, as the various M-420 orders had some minor variances on fittings (fuel capacity, trucks, and I believe cooling arrangements as well.) This of course doesn't even begin to cover rebuilds and modifications over the service life of locomotives.

All this being said, a source stating a 2000 horsepower locomotive has 2400 horsepower makes me seriously doubt its reliability in the numbers I can't immediately fact check with primary sources. DocTrench (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)