This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are frequent requests for this article to be re-named.
Before making such a request, please read the past discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 20#Naming convention. Biscuittin ( talk) 18:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
I've just seen a photo in Rail Express magazine for October 2009. What a weird machine! It looks like a Reliant Robin. Biscuittin ( talk) 15:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I have added "merge" tags to this and Freightliner Project Genesis. There is also GE PH37ACmi which currently redirects to "Freightliner Project Genesis". Biscuittin ( talk) 15:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Articles merged. 83.100.251.196 ( talk) 13:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Quote: "with a further 3% increase in efficiency from regenerative braking, the energy from which is used to power auxiliary motors". How will this work? Will the current go direct to the auxiliary motors or through a battery? I suspect the savings will be negligible, and will not justify the added complication, but perhaps I am too cynical. I'd go for something like a Green Goat hybrid but I suppose the weight of the batteries would rule this out for a high-power locomotive. Biscuittin ( talk) 11:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm the purpose of the stripy blocks on the front - one suggestion is that they are "anti-climb" blocks - part of a safety package for collisions - but aren't such things no use on locos with buffers as in the UK?
Also some of the order going to be made in Turkey by Tulomsas? 83.100.251.196 ( talk) 14:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
-- The reference to Turkey in some of the press releases appears misleading. The first two units that have just arrived in Wales were shipped directly from Norfolk Virginia according to local newspaper. Further information indicates that production units will assembled at Tulomsas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.19.250 ( talk) 19:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Are there "two lengthwise exterior walkways"? It looks to me as though there are just short walkways behind each cab to give access to the cab doors. Biscuittin ( talk) 20:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The article currently has two sources for specifications : http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view//freightliner-powerhaul-loco-design-on-show.html and http://www.therailwaycentre.com/News%20Nov%202007/261107_Freight.html
Both have exactly the same data, except that the railwaycentre.com says length is exactly 23m, whereas railwaygazette says 21.7m
Earlier on http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/10/ge-enters-uk-loco-market.html says 23m, I think that must have been an estimate? Later articles (2008 onwards) all say 21.7m eg [6]
Freigtliner's own pdf says 21.7m, but says it isn't definately a final figure: [7]
I've left both in the article for now. I've changed to freightliners own most recent specs, this also confirms details about the 3% energy efficiciency when braking (see above).
83.100.251.196 (
talk)
18:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
According to my 'spies' the first 2 locos should now be at Newport Docks - the vessel "BBC KUSAN" left there a few hours ago... 83.100.251.196 ( talk) 16:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added a CC image from flickr of 70001 on the way to Leeds - http://www.flickr.com/photos/onemananhisdog/4122004036/. Scillystuff ( talk) 13:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
By the time you read this the article will have moved to "British Rail Class 70 (PowerHaul)" (note the capital H). 87.102.78.86 ( talk) 18:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
[10] Question do the references relate to the new insertion about DC locomotives - ie do they say that 70 was previously a DC electric number.? Shortfatlad ( talk) 22:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 20:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
British Rail Class 70 (PowerHaul) →
British Rail Class 70 (diesel) — relisted
81.111.114.131 (
talk)
14:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
[15] "GE Transportation’s PowerHaul Locomotive is based on the company’s global Evolution® Series locomotive platform introduced in 2005." I think the article should mention the heritage - or link to GE Evolution Series. 87.102.67.84 ( talk) 13:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed this from the infobox : |nicknames = Predators, Bulldogs<ref name="gehandover">{{cite video |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et9upu56JI4|title=GE celebrates first shipment of PowerHaul locos destined for Freightliner in the UK |publisher=Freightliner}}</ref>
Reason - what somebody says at a corporate unveiling (before the locomotive has even been seen by those who would give it a nickname) - does not constitute a 'proper' nickname. If anyone is aware of any common 'real' nicknames developing please use that. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 01:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It is suggested to move the page to "Powerhaul" or a similar title since the scope of the article now included locomotves used for the Turkish state railways. There are plenty examples of locomotive articles used by more than one state railway system which are located at a more general article title name - eg EMD Class 66, TRAXX, Eurorunner . Sf5xeplus ( talk) 20:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Good. I've changed the redirect at Powerhaul (locomotive) to point to PowerHaul (locomotive) (and talk pages), as this Class 70 article can be picked up with the hatnote. Tim PF ( talk) 22:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the empty section on Turkish locomotives. They should have an article of their own. Mjroots ( talk) 10:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:Content fork - it's not ok to create two articles with such similarity. eg In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. blah blah.
Please come up with a proper way to treat this. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 16:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
For now I've reverted to a version before the content fork [16] using the old title. A simple solution would be to use the name "Powerhaul" in one of it's variant - it meets the specifications laid down at Wikipedia:Article_titles of "Recognizability", "Naturalness", "Precision", "Conciseness". I see that there is a problem regarding "Consistency" - here there are at least 2 conventions:
Regarding the 75% overlap: I guess we'd pretty much reached that point before you reverted things back earlier today (Saturday, 5th). There were probably a few more Turkish bits to come out of the Class 70 article (I wasn't sure if any of the British locos were made in Turkey), and a little more effort would probably get it down to about 60% overlap. Once the Turkish locomotives get into service, either the generic article or a Turkish sub-article would get updated (with no changes required to the Class 70). When they export elsewhere, only the generic article needs updating, and the overlap reduces even further.
If we were to wait until it's an estimated 25%, we'd possibly be dealing with a three-way split, but it'd probably be a much bigger effort to untangle into separate articles. That's not counting the problem of the one person who insists that it needs a content overlap of only 10% to justify not having to sometimes replicate an edit in two or three related articles. So, if there appears to be a consensus to split the articles at some time (albeit with minority dissent), it might as well be done sooner rather than later.
Oh, and thanks for the link to WP:Content fork, as having read that, I can confirm the justification under "Acceptable types of forking": Article spinouts: "Summary style" articles and Related articles. Conversely, "Unacceptable types of forking": POV forks "... generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." I cannot see any difference in POV, unless you count a difference of opinion on the number of articles required. Tim PF ( talk) 00:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way the common name for the british locomotives is definately not "British Rail Class 70" - "Freightliner Class 70" is much more commonly used both in publisher magazines, and in forums etc. This can be confirmed with a web search or looking at the railway magazines. - here is an example of what I am talking about http://railexpress.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/uk-launch-for-freightliner-class-70/ "Powerhaul class 70" is also common. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 17:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I think I know the source of the confusion (and I'll try to be objective for this paragraph). Thryduulf uses the term family article, following on from my own usage of the PowerHaul family article, and appears to have broadly agreed with my preceding comment, at least in including the Turkish locomotives either in the family article or on their own, but not in a "Class 70" article (whatever prefix or suffix used). You then agreed with that, but I guess (from you last comment and others) that you probably didn't mean to. Whatever the cause of your confusion, Thryduulf picked up on your unintentional agreement, which he noted as the consensus in his last comment.
The split, will, of course, be back to the state we had a few days ago with the PowerHaul (locomotive) (ie family) article, and this (something) Class 70 Britain only article. HTH. Oh, BTW, I pretty much agree with Thryduulf's comments today (Tuesday); I'll not comment on your own comments due to your apparent confusion. Tim PF ( talk) 00:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
split}}
template to this article ({{split|[[PowerHaul (locomotive)]]|[[British Rail Class 70 (diesel)]]||part=yes|discuss=Talk:British Rail Class 70 (diesel)#Proposed article split|date=March 2011}}).{{
Disputed title}}
tag... I don't know how many more ways I can explain why I am completely opposed to including the names of TOC/FOCs in articles titles, but I'll try once more. When you have a large group of articles about the same subject (such as locomotives and multiple units that have been allocated a TOPS class and run or did run on the British railway network) there is significant value in having stable, consistent and predictable titles for the article titles. Some classes may only ever be operated by one TOC/FOC throughout their operational life in Britain and so the TOC/FOC name can be used clearly, but this does not offer consistency. Who should be named in the title for the Class 66 article - EWS? DB Schenker? Freightliner? DRS? (First) GBRf? Europorte? Colas? Advenza Freight? Fastline? Metronet? Stobart Rail? I can link to
British Rail Class 70 now and know that this link will remain valid whether or not XXYZZ Rail starts operating Class 70s next year. The key word in your statement is "currently", of the classes introduced between privatisation and 2006 (5 years ago) I think only the 168s, 185s, 332s, and 390s have not changed operator or the operator has not changed brand name since introduction, so is unlikely to provide the stability or consistency required.
Regarding "GE Powerhaul"/"GE PowerHaul" (if we have any article with this word in the title we must remember to set up redirects from the capitalisation we don't use), sorry to disappoint, but I disagree that this would be a good name. It requires knowledge of the manufacturer and does not match other locomotive/mu family articles. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 20#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avicennasis ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The lead states that Freightliner ordered 30 locomotives, and that 20 units are also to be produced by Tulomsas for TCDD. Tulomsas has an agreement to assemble Powerhaul locomotives for the European, Middle East and North African markets (without specifying exactly where).
We now see that one has been assembled by Tülomsas, but the Railway Gazette article states that "According to Tülomsas the locomotive will undergo a year of trials with TCDD before being shipped to the UK". It was out-shopped in dark green with a small Turkish flag on each cab side, so I guess that this is one of Freightliner's order of 30, which will be repainted when it is shipped to the UK.
The www.turkishny.com article states that "TULOMSAS will manufacture 30 PowerHaul locomotives for the GE and 20 others for the TCDD". But that's not quite the same 30 that were ordered by Freightliner, as 12 of those have already been shipped direct from Erie, PA, so there must be at least another 12 on order with GE that will be assembled in Turkey.
So, either someone is quoting the wrong figures, or there's an undisclosed (or unnoticed) order or three. Anyone any ideas? Tim PF ( talk) 00:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Are we bothering with names - an early one was named "PowerHaul" [18] and I just found out that another has been named [19] 70004 The Coal Industry Society - I don't care either way (unless they name it after me..) so it's your call.. If you want to keep a tab on it though I will keep a record of them. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 22:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
This should be discussed at WikiProject level, which is where this discussion has been copied. Mjroots ( talk) 05:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I see that British Rail Class 66, British Rail Class 67 and British Rail Class 70 (diesel) all have "disputed title" tags. This was discussed at length on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways and I thought we had a consensus to keep the existing titles. Why are the tags still in place? Biscuittin ( talk) 20:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we have an edit war over the "disputed title" tag. It keeps re-appearing. Biscuittin ( talk) 18:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It might be worth considering dispute resolution after a while - the page has been moved back twice [24] [25] I don't have any subjective (personal niggles) or objective (rules and guidlines) objections to either of the two names that were tried. Other names have been suggested too, which seem like good alternatives ie "GE Powerhaul locomotive" "Class 70 locomotive (GB)" and "Freightliner Class 70" all of which seem to be ok as far as accuracy and also each have a fair number of common use examples. I don't understand the objections to the move so if no resolution is found or closer after whatever time span is usual I would think it would be time to take it to a dispute resolution process with some independent feedback. 83.100.201.61 ( talk) 15:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The title fails WP:Verify and the guidelines at WP:Article titles. No reliable source uses the term "British Rail Class 70", and there are several alternatives. The tag Template:Disputed title has been on the page for some time since previous attempts to change the title were blocked by users at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways. If anyone can resolve this issue please do so. Imgaril ( talk) 15:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks like an " Ipswich to Bigge's Camp railway Class 70" is going to join the Chemins de Fer Ottomans d'Anatolie and British Rail versions. [26] A US designed, Australian built loco with no link whatsoever to a UK organisation which exists purely for some legal technicalities. Wheeltapper ( talk) 12:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
On 24 April 2012 70007 also caught fire at Bramley whilst hauling waggons containing dangerous goods. citation needed
Until this fire can be referenced as serious, and not a minor incident.. There's a danger of mentioning every time one blows a fuse. The "dangerous goods" line is a red herring. Images http://www.flickr.com/photos/67992223@N03/7112331815/in/photostream and http://www.wnxx.com/pictures/70007.htm - looks minor.. Oranjblud ( talk) 14:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The "prime mover" section of the infobox has been left blank. Is it the GE PowerHaul P616 2,750 kW (3,700 hp) engine shown at GE PowerHaul? Biscuittin ( talk) 12:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Was 7* under TOPS reserved for electro-diesels or for DC electrics?
Empirically, the Woodhead locos (76 & 77) do indeed suggest that the 7* series vs. the 8* series was for indeed for DC locos (catenary or 3rd rail). However I've never seen it claimed that this was particularly deliberate, whilst I have read that the electro-diesels were deliberately grouped in this range. Does anyone have a robust source?
In the meantime I've reverted the change, mostly to avoid the redlink. If we do change this, the link ought to point to a section within the TOPS article. Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
This class of locomotive is properly classified as a cl.70 because the Railway Group Standard document GM/RT2453 (issue 2 Sept 2011) 'Registration,Identification and Data to be Displayed on Rail Vehicles' on p.15 has changed the TOPS classification of National Rail (ex BR) traction. Classes 01-09 are for diesel shunters, 10-79 for diesel locomotives and classes 80-96 are for electric locomotives. Class 73 is allocated to electro-diesels. (All diesel shunter classes are preoccupied and where future electro-diesels will go - who knows). Barney Bruchstein ( talk) 20:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
British Rail Class 70 (diesel). 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 16:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
British Rail Class 70 (diesel). 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 19:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 70 (diesel). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Unclear why this article attributes the locomotive to "British Rail" See - /info/en/?search=British_Rail As Wikipedia's article on British Rail makes clear, "British Rail" was a brand name of British Railways, the long defunct nationalised operator of the British railway system. It was defunct long before this design was thought of. "British railways TOPS class 70" would be more correct (capital "R" for "British, small "r" for railways).
TJ — Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are frequent requests for this article to be re-named.
Before making such a request, please read the past discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 20#Naming convention. Biscuittin ( talk) 18:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
I've just seen a photo in Rail Express magazine for October 2009. What a weird machine! It looks like a Reliant Robin. Biscuittin ( talk) 15:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I have added "merge" tags to this and Freightliner Project Genesis. There is also GE PH37ACmi which currently redirects to "Freightliner Project Genesis". Biscuittin ( talk) 15:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Articles merged. 83.100.251.196 ( talk) 13:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Quote: "with a further 3% increase in efficiency from regenerative braking, the energy from which is used to power auxiliary motors". How will this work? Will the current go direct to the auxiliary motors or through a battery? I suspect the savings will be negligible, and will not justify the added complication, but perhaps I am too cynical. I'd go for something like a Green Goat hybrid but I suppose the weight of the batteries would rule this out for a high-power locomotive. Biscuittin ( talk) 11:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm the purpose of the stripy blocks on the front - one suggestion is that they are "anti-climb" blocks - part of a safety package for collisions - but aren't such things no use on locos with buffers as in the UK?
Also some of the order going to be made in Turkey by Tulomsas? 83.100.251.196 ( talk) 14:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
-- The reference to Turkey in some of the press releases appears misleading. The first two units that have just arrived in Wales were shipped directly from Norfolk Virginia according to local newspaper. Further information indicates that production units will assembled at Tulomsas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.19.250 ( talk) 19:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Are there "two lengthwise exterior walkways"? It looks to me as though there are just short walkways behind each cab to give access to the cab doors. Biscuittin ( talk) 20:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The article currently has two sources for specifications : http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view//freightliner-powerhaul-loco-design-on-show.html and http://www.therailwaycentre.com/News%20Nov%202007/261107_Freight.html
Both have exactly the same data, except that the railwaycentre.com says length is exactly 23m, whereas railwaygazette says 21.7m
Earlier on http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/10/ge-enters-uk-loco-market.html says 23m, I think that must have been an estimate? Later articles (2008 onwards) all say 21.7m eg [6]
Freigtliner's own pdf says 21.7m, but says it isn't definately a final figure: [7]
I've left both in the article for now. I've changed to freightliners own most recent specs, this also confirms details about the 3% energy efficiciency when braking (see above).
83.100.251.196 (
talk)
18:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
According to my 'spies' the first 2 locos should now be at Newport Docks - the vessel "BBC KUSAN" left there a few hours ago... 83.100.251.196 ( talk) 16:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added a CC image from flickr of 70001 on the way to Leeds - http://www.flickr.com/photos/onemananhisdog/4122004036/. Scillystuff ( talk) 13:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
By the time you read this the article will have moved to "British Rail Class 70 (PowerHaul)" (note the capital H). 87.102.78.86 ( talk) 18:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
[10] Question do the references relate to the new insertion about DC locomotives - ie do they say that 70 was previously a DC electric number.? Shortfatlad ( talk) 22:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 20:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
British Rail Class 70 (PowerHaul) →
British Rail Class 70 (diesel) — relisted
81.111.114.131 (
talk)
14:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
[15] "GE Transportation’s PowerHaul Locomotive is based on the company’s global Evolution® Series locomotive platform introduced in 2005." I think the article should mention the heritage - or link to GE Evolution Series. 87.102.67.84 ( talk) 13:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed this from the infobox : |nicknames = Predators, Bulldogs<ref name="gehandover">{{cite video |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et9upu56JI4|title=GE celebrates first shipment of PowerHaul locos destined for Freightliner in the UK |publisher=Freightliner}}</ref>
Reason - what somebody says at a corporate unveiling (before the locomotive has even been seen by those who would give it a nickname) - does not constitute a 'proper' nickname. If anyone is aware of any common 'real' nicknames developing please use that. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 01:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It is suggested to move the page to "Powerhaul" or a similar title since the scope of the article now included locomotves used for the Turkish state railways. There are plenty examples of locomotive articles used by more than one state railway system which are located at a more general article title name - eg EMD Class 66, TRAXX, Eurorunner . Sf5xeplus ( talk) 20:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Good. I've changed the redirect at Powerhaul (locomotive) to point to PowerHaul (locomotive) (and talk pages), as this Class 70 article can be picked up with the hatnote. Tim PF ( talk) 22:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the empty section on Turkish locomotives. They should have an article of their own. Mjroots ( talk) 10:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:Content fork - it's not ok to create two articles with such similarity. eg In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. blah blah.
Please come up with a proper way to treat this. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 16:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
For now I've reverted to a version before the content fork [16] using the old title. A simple solution would be to use the name "Powerhaul" in one of it's variant - it meets the specifications laid down at Wikipedia:Article_titles of "Recognizability", "Naturalness", "Precision", "Conciseness". I see that there is a problem regarding "Consistency" - here there are at least 2 conventions:
Regarding the 75% overlap: I guess we'd pretty much reached that point before you reverted things back earlier today (Saturday, 5th). There were probably a few more Turkish bits to come out of the Class 70 article (I wasn't sure if any of the British locos were made in Turkey), and a little more effort would probably get it down to about 60% overlap. Once the Turkish locomotives get into service, either the generic article or a Turkish sub-article would get updated (with no changes required to the Class 70). When they export elsewhere, only the generic article needs updating, and the overlap reduces even further.
If we were to wait until it's an estimated 25%, we'd possibly be dealing with a three-way split, but it'd probably be a much bigger effort to untangle into separate articles. That's not counting the problem of the one person who insists that it needs a content overlap of only 10% to justify not having to sometimes replicate an edit in two or three related articles. So, if there appears to be a consensus to split the articles at some time (albeit with minority dissent), it might as well be done sooner rather than later.
Oh, and thanks for the link to WP:Content fork, as having read that, I can confirm the justification under "Acceptable types of forking": Article spinouts: "Summary style" articles and Related articles. Conversely, "Unacceptable types of forking": POV forks "... generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." I cannot see any difference in POV, unless you count a difference of opinion on the number of articles required. Tim PF ( talk) 00:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way the common name for the british locomotives is definately not "British Rail Class 70" - "Freightliner Class 70" is much more commonly used both in publisher magazines, and in forums etc. This can be confirmed with a web search or looking at the railway magazines. - here is an example of what I am talking about http://railexpress.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/uk-launch-for-freightliner-class-70/ "Powerhaul class 70" is also common. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 17:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I think I know the source of the confusion (and I'll try to be objective for this paragraph). Thryduulf uses the term family article, following on from my own usage of the PowerHaul family article, and appears to have broadly agreed with my preceding comment, at least in including the Turkish locomotives either in the family article or on their own, but not in a "Class 70" article (whatever prefix or suffix used). You then agreed with that, but I guess (from you last comment and others) that you probably didn't mean to. Whatever the cause of your confusion, Thryduulf picked up on your unintentional agreement, which he noted as the consensus in his last comment.
The split, will, of course, be back to the state we had a few days ago with the PowerHaul (locomotive) (ie family) article, and this (something) Class 70 Britain only article. HTH. Oh, BTW, I pretty much agree with Thryduulf's comments today (Tuesday); I'll not comment on your own comments due to your apparent confusion. Tim PF ( talk) 00:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
split}}
template to this article ({{split|[[PowerHaul (locomotive)]]|[[British Rail Class 70 (diesel)]]||part=yes|discuss=Talk:British Rail Class 70 (diesel)#Proposed article split|date=March 2011}}).{{
Disputed title}}
tag... I don't know how many more ways I can explain why I am completely opposed to including the names of TOC/FOCs in articles titles, but I'll try once more. When you have a large group of articles about the same subject (such as locomotives and multiple units that have been allocated a TOPS class and run or did run on the British railway network) there is significant value in having stable, consistent and predictable titles for the article titles. Some classes may only ever be operated by one TOC/FOC throughout their operational life in Britain and so the TOC/FOC name can be used clearly, but this does not offer consistency. Who should be named in the title for the Class 66 article - EWS? DB Schenker? Freightliner? DRS? (First) GBRf? Europorte? Colas? Advenza Freight? Fastline? Metronet? Stobart Rail? I can link to
British Rail Class 70 now and know that this link will remain valid whether or not XXYZZ Rail starts operating Class 70s next year. The key word in your statement is "currently", of the classes introduced between privatisation and 2006 (5 years ago) I think only the 168s, 185s, 332s, and 390s have not changed operator or the operator has not changed brand name since introduction, so is unlikely to provide the stability or consistency required.
Regarding "GE Powerhaul"/"GE PowerHaul" (if we have any article with this word in the title we must remember to set up redirects from the capitalisation we don't use), sorry to disappoint, but I disagree that this would be a good name. It requires knowledge of the manufacturer and does not match other locomotive/mu family articles. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 20#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avicennasis ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The lead states that Freightliner ordered 30 locomotives, and that 20 units are also to be produced by Tulomsas for TCDD. Tulomsas has an agreement to assemble Powerhaul locomotives for the European, Middle East and North African markets (without specifying exactly where).
We now see that one has been assembled by Tülomsas, but the Railway Gazette article states that "According to Tülomsas the locomotive will undergo a year of trials with TCDD before being shipped to the UK". It was out-shopped in dark green with a small Turkish flag on each cab side, so I guess that this is one of Freightliner's order of 30, which will be repainted when it is shipped to the UK.
The www.turkishny.com article states that "TULOMSAS will manufacture 30 PowerHaul locomotives for the GE and 20 others for the TCDD". But that's not quite the same 30 that were ordered by Freightliner, as 12 of those have already been shipped direct from Erie, PA, so there must be at least another 12 on order with GE that will be assembled in Turkey.
So, either someone is quoting the wrong figures, or there's an undisclosed (or unnoticed) order or three. Anyone any ideas? Tim PF ( talk) 00:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Are we bothering with names - an early one was named "PowerHaul" [18] and I just found out that another has been named [19] 70004 The Coal Industry Society - I don't care either way (unless they name it after me..) so it's your call.. If you want to keep a tab on it though I will keep a record of them. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 22:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
This should be discussed at WikiProject level, which is where this discussion has been copied. Mjroots ( talk) 05:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I see that British Rail Class 66, British Rail Class 67 and British Rail Class 70 (diesel) all have "disputed title" tags. This was discussed at length on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways and I thought we had a consensus to keep the existing titles. Why are the tags still in place? Biscuittin ( talk) 20:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we have an edit war over the "disputed title" tag. It keeps re-appearing. Biscuittin ( talk) 18:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It might be worth considering dispute resolution after a while - the page has been moved back twice [24] [25] I don't have any subjective (personal niggles) or objective (rules and guidlines) objections to either of the two names that were tried. Other names have been suggested too, which seem like good alternatives ie "GE Powerhaul locomotive" "Class 70 locomotive (GB)" and "Freightliner Class 70" all of which seem to be ok as far as accuracy and also each have a fair number of common use examples. I don't understand the objections to the move so if no resolution is found or closer after whatever time span is usual I would think it would be time to take it to a dispute resolution process with some independent feedback. 83.100.201.61 ( talk) 15:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The title fails WP:Verify and the guidelines at WP:Article titles. No reliable source uses the term "British Rail Class 70", and there are several alternatives. The tag Template:Disputed title has been on the page for some time since previous attempts to change the title were blocked by users at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways. If anyone can resolve this issue please do so. Imgaril ( talk) 15:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks like an " Ipswich to Bigge's Camp railway Class 70" is going to join the Chemins de Fer Ottomans d'Anatolie and British Rail versions. [26] A US designed, Australian built loco with no link whatsoever to a UK organisation which exists purely for some legal technicalities. Wheeltapper ( talk) 12:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
On 24 April 2012 70007 also caught fire at Bramley whilst hauling waggons containing dangerous goods. citation needed
Until this fire can be referenced as serious, and not a minor incident.. There's a danger of mentioning every time one blows a fuse. The "dangerous goods" line is a red herring. Images http://www.flickr.com/photos/67992223@N03/7112331815/in/photostream and http://www.wnxx.com/pictures/70007.htm - looks minor.. Oranjblud ( talk) 14:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The "prime mover" section of the infobox has been left blank. Is it the GE PowerHaul P616 2,750 kW (3,700 hp) engine shown at GE PowerHaul? Biscuittin ( talk) 12:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Was 7* under TOPS reserved for electro-diesels or for DC electrics?
Empirically, the Woodhead locos (76 & 77) do indeed suggest that the 7* series vs. the 8* series was for indeed for DC locos (catenary or 3rd rail). However I've never seen it claimed that this was particularly deliberate, whilst I have read that the electro-diesels were deliberately grouped in this range. Does anyone have a robust source?
In the meantime I've reverted the change, mostly to avoid the redlink. If we do change this, the link ought to point to a section within the TOPS article. Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
This class of locomotive is properly classified as a cl.70 because the Railway Group Standard document GM/RT2453 (issue 2 Sept 2011) 'Registration,Identification and Data to be Displayed on Rail Vehicles' on p.15 has changed the TOPS classification of National Rail (ex BR) traction. Classes 01-09 are for diesel shunters, 10-79 for diesel locomotives and classes 80-96 are for electric locomotives. Class 73 is allocated to electro-diesels. (All diesel shunter classes are preoccupied and where future electro-diesels will go - who knows). Barney Bruchstein ( talk) 20:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
British Rail Class 70 (diesel). 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 16:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
British Rail Class 70 (diesel). 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 19:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 70 (diesel). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Unclear why this article attributes the locomotive to "British Rail" See - /info/en/?search=British_Rail As Wikipedia's article on British Rail makes clear, "British Rail" was a brand name of British Railways, the long defunct nationalised operator of the British railway system. It was defunct long before this design was thought of. "British railways TOPS class 70" would be more correct (capital "R" for "British, small "r" for railways).
TJ — Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)