This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bank engine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"is a railway locomotive attached to a train that does not have enough tractive effort to climb a steep but short gradient, also called a bank." --Can someone translate this into English? o_O – ∅ ( ∅), 13:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
These 2 articles appear completely redundant and should be combined IMO Davemeistermoab
I reverted an edit by EdJogg because his changes are technically incorrect. "Run-in" is the term used to describe what happens in a train when the slack is abruptly bunched. A run-in could be the result of rough throttle handling while backing a long train, abrupt use of dynamic brakes on a descending grade or improper use of a pusher locomotive on an ascending grade (more rarely on level track). A run-in is not a collision in the generally accepted sense of the word.
If a run-in is caused by a pusher locomotive crew failing to cut off power when the lead crew is applying the brakes, the forces involved are usually sufficient to buckle the train at empty or partially loaded cars, resulting in a massive derailment. A train with empties placed near the head end is particularly vulnerable to this calamity.
Bigdumbdinosaur 20:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I understand the potential confusion regarding run-in, especially since it and "bunching the slack" are originally North American terms. Over here, we deal with a lot more mountainous terrain where those sorts of problems can occur.
The point to be made is that a run-in and a collision are different phenomena: the former occurs due to inertial factors peculiar to trains (each car or locomotive is a separately moving entity whose inertial forces can be propagated throughout the train), whereas a collision in the railroad context involves cars or locomotives that are not coupled together.
In my travels during my railroading career, I had numerous occasions to "talk shop" with UK railroaders (and railroaders in Saudi Arabia), all of whom were familiar with the terms "run-in" and "slack bunching." The former is a violent form of the latter. For example, slack bunching is common as a train crests a grade and starts to descend. On the upgrade, the slack was stretched due to the draft of the locomotives. As the train crests the grade, the slack starts to bunch as gravity pushes each car downgrade, these forces referred to as buff loads. If the engineer applies dynamic (rheostatic) braking on the downgrade without also applying the train brakes, all slack will eventually be bunched, as buff loading will substantially increase. If he applies dynamic brakes too quickly, a run-in may occur due to the forward end of the train trying to slow down faster than the rear end.
Bigdumbdinosaur 06:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The following is a trial balloon for yet another railroad article—haven't decided on a title.
Bigdumbdinosaur 19:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Would it be proper English to say that a locomotive "banks" a train? If not, what would be the proper verb? "push" sounds a bit too generic... (in German there is a distinction between "stossen" ("push") and "schieben" (??), which makes it sound wrong to me to use "push" in this context) -- Kabelleger ( talk) 18:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
What's up with these weird percent marks? 28%o or 60%o, like "percent" but with thousands instead of hundreds. It's extremely counter-intuitive. I'm going to go ahead and replace them with the standard percentage values (i.e. 2.8% and 6.0%)... if there's a reason for NOT doing this, feel free to post it here. --- 68.90.45.10 ( talk) 12:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is the UK listed separately to Europe in the examples section? Steventee ( talk) 13:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, that is an easy fix, but this is a symptom of a bigger problem, in my opinion. This list is starting to get wily, and is becoming a hodgepodge of everybody's favorite rail line that has a hill. IMO this list should be removed, or at least reformatted and pruned in such a way that there is a threshold of notability, not just a random list of rail lines with grades. Anybody else see it this way, or am I out of line? Dave ( talk) 01:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Bank engine. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Thunderbird locomotive. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 9#Thunderbird locomotive until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bank engine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"is a railway locomotive attached to a train that does not have enough tractive effort to climb a steep but short gradient, also called a bank." --Can someone translate this into English? o_O – ∅ ( ∅), 13:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
These 2 articles appear completely redundant and should be combined IMO Davemeistermoab
I reverted an edit by EdJogg because his changes are technically incorrect. "Run-in" is the term used to describe what happens in a train when the slack is abruptly bunched. A run-in could be the result of rough throttle handling while backing a long train, abrupt use of dynamic brakes on a descending grade or improper use of a pusher locomotive on an ascending grade (more rarely on level track). A run-in is not a collision in the generally accepted sense of the word.
If a run-in is caused by a pusher locomotive crew failing to cut off power when the lead crew is applying the brakes, the forces involved are usually sufficient to buckle the train at empty or partially loaded cars, resulting in a massive derailment. A train with empties placed near the head end is particularly vulnerable to this calamity.
Bigdumbdinosaur 20:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I understand the potential confusion regarding run-in, especially since it and "bunching the slack" are originally North American terms. Over here, we deal with a lot more mountainous terrain where those sorts of problems can occur.
The point to be made is that a run-in and a collision are different phenomena: the former occurs due to inertial factors peculiar to trains (each car or locomotive is a separately moving entity whose inertial forces can be propagated throughout the train), whereas a collision in the railroad context involves cars or locomotives that are not coupled together.
In my travels during my railroading career, I had numerous occasions to "talk shop" with UK railroaders (and railroaders in Saudi Arabia), all of whom were familiar with the terms "run-in" and "slack bunching." The former is a violent form of the latter. For example, slack bunching is common as a train crests a grade and starts to descend. On the upgrade, the slack was stretched due to the draft of the locomotives. As the train crests the grade, the slack starts to bunch as gravity pushes each car downgrade, these forces referred to as buff loads. If the engineer applies dynamic (rheostatic) braking on the downgrade without also applying the train brakes, all slack will eventually be bunched, as buff loading will substantially increase. If he applies dynamic brakes too quickly, a run-in may occur due to the forward end of the train trying to slow down faster than the rear end.
Bigdumbdinosaur 06:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The following is a trial balloon for yet another railroad article—haven't decided on a title.
Bigdumbdinosaur 19:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Would it be proper English to say that a locomotive "banks" a train? If not, what would be the proper verb? "push" sounds a bit too generic... (in German there is a distinction between "stossen" ("push") and "schieben" (??), which makes it sound wrong to me to use "push" in this context) -- Kabelleger ( talk) 18:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
What's up with these weird percent marks? 28%o or 60%o, like "percent" but with thousands instead of hundreds. It's extremely counter-intuitive. I'm going to go ahead and replace them with the standard percentage values (i.e. 2.8% and 6.0%)... if there's a reason for NOT doing this, feel free to post it here. --- 68.90.45.10 ( talk) 12:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is the UK listed separately to Europe in the examples section? Steventee ( talk) 13:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, that is an easy fix, but this is a symptom of a bigger problem, in my opinion. This list is starting to get wily, and is becoming a hodgepodge of everybody's favorite rail line that has a hill. IMO this list should be removed, or at least reformatted and pruned in such a way that there is a threshold of notability, not just a random list of rail lines with grades. Anybody else see it this way, or am I out of line? Dave ( talk) 01:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Bank engine. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Thunderbird locomotive. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 9#Thunderbird locomotive until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)