![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The steam section talks about coal resource exhaustion "especially in Europe". This is wrong to say the least. Most of Europe still has coal coming out of its ears but diesel is still (for the moment) vastly cheaper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.110.250 ( talk) 08:38, 18 May 2005
I agree. In fact the text used to strongly imply that steam ended because the coal ran out, which is clearly not the case. Coal is still plentiful in Europe, North America and China, which hasn't stopped the move to internal combustion and electric traction. Indeed, the end of steam was the (partial) cause of the end of the coal industry in some countries, not the other way around.
I've made some edits to reflect this, but more are needed. Gwernol 20:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
It would perhaps be better to explain in terms of efficiency and also time to start which is a very big issue and I suspect (but don't have references) for being one of the big reasons diesel shunters took off early on. 81.2.110.250 22:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Time to start is a big one for the switcher, especially.
Morven, I'd like to see that article: it would be a great addition. The labor-intensive nature of steam was a major reason for the switch to diesel. Another is the instant availability of diesel locomotives. You can switch one on and its ready to haul a train essentially immediately. A large steam locomotive can take 8-10 hours to prepare from cold. Many standard gauge steam locos were kept in full or partial steam overnight to overcome this, which of course meant that the locos weren't available for maintenance and were more costly in terms of fuel and the need for nightwatchmen to ensure safety.
In the UK at least, the passage of the Clean Air Act in the early 1950's (I think) was a major spur to the abandonment of steam. The infamous London smogs of the 1930's and 40's were mainly caused by the emissions from coal fires in private homes, but steam locomotives also contributed and were limited by the legislation. My mother recalls the winter before the Clean Air Act when 50,000 Londoners were said to have died from the foul combination of coal dust and fog in the air. Gwernol — Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 30 September 2005
Is this the proper place for such a long list of mostly old, unavailable books? -- Janke | Talk 17:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess nobody is changing the article, despite the numerous suggestions, due to neglect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.204.87 ( talk) 02:13, 5 April 2006
This barely conforms to wikipedia standards considering it's such an important article. Surely it should be a basic description of what a locomotive is, and then there should be links to the history of the locomotive, the diesel locomotive, the steam locomotive, and so forth.
What gets me is saying that "the first successful locomotives" were built by Richard Trevithick, as if to say there were locomotives that preceded his. But to my knowledge he invented the first locomotive period. This downplaying of the genius of one of the Cornish heroes is disgusting, and I demand that it be rephrased unless significant evidence can be brought forth that proves that there were unsuccessful locomotives before his. -- Badharlick 22:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The animated gif was originally added to this article by me, and now it's up for promotion on WP:FPC. However, there are some errors in the animation, as I point out here - anybody cares to comment, or replace the image with this one? (My only dislike for that one is the prominent signature...) -- Janke | Talk 22:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
mag lev vehicles have no motion provideing components in them they can only move useing specialised track which has as much components provideing motive power as the vehicle -- Oxyman42 — Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 25 April 2006
>The HST holds the world speed record for diesel traction
The russian have a diesel locomotive that did 273km/h. http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/ru/diesel/misc/tep80_sherbinka.jpg 213.178.107.244 19:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I've created a separate article for steam locomotive. Please visit it and give it the help it surely desparately needs. Most of all it needs a British/European perspective. Mangoe 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's about time we put the diesels in their own article. I'm going to try that tonight, and I'm going to (initially) make it all one big diesel locomotive article because I think it's going to be hard to talk about some aspects without ignoring the various transmission varieties. I think we're going to have to deal with multiple unit operation in a separate article. Mangoe 18:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
This article is more or less totally lacking in references. It was probably not so bad when the statements were mostly "common knowledge", but now we have someone claiming that "However the quality of the electricity produced during [regenerative] braking is usually too poor to be of much importance." We need a citation for that. Mangoe 12:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the the reference to Isambard Kingdom Brunel because as far as I can tell his importance to railroading lies in civil engineering and not locomotive design. Please do not restore the passage without amplifying it with discription of a specific contribution. Mangoe 13:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I took out a reference on the benefits of electrification from an advocacy site. This article needs real references, but not like that. It's clear that we are going to have to get together a set of references on electrification and compose them into something more sophisticated than the "more costly!" and "runs great!" stuff we are getting now. Mangoe 10:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
In general, I considered simply the following reasonement, based on elementary thermodynamics and engineering reasons:
I cite this part of the previous section I didn't notice at the moment, coming from an user that forgot to sign:
“ | Europe is a smaller part of the world than is North America | ” |
I think:
IMHO, phrases like these show the deep bias of US users, and mostly their lack of openmindness. It seems that US people cannot convince themselves that things in Europe can be far more advanced, sometimes. They cannot believe that they are currently an underdeveloped country as for railways. Until such a mentality will remain imperant here, articles like this one will remain in this poor state. -- Attilios 18:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I've found an appropriate page in the CIA Factbook [3] and will be putting in some real numbers. Mangoe 14:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
No need to ask me which I like best, we have 18-wheelers in North America that haul more than European freight trains. -- HarveyHenkelmann 15:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I have modified the page to include disadvantages of Locomotive's as well as their advantages. The same has been done to the multiple unit page for fairness Dellarb 10:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-- AGoon 10:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I note that user 63.245.177.253 changed "The first successful locomotives were built by ..." to "The first successful giant weiner locomotives were built by ...". Is there nothing that someone can do to remove this idiot from Wikipedia ... this identity does seem to have a history of this kind of behaviour to judge from his history of page changes. It really is time for authors on WP to be properly registered. ALECTRIC451 21:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Locomotive is also an OS X program decently popular among Ruby on Rails developers. Disambig? -- 64.241.69.167 21:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC) ( User:AlanH not signed in)
The last steam engine ceased operating in China on December 9th, 2005. You can look this up in Xinhua. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.204.87 ( talk) 03:09, 11 January 2006
Hehehe, I know boothbay maine USA has at least one still going, if only in circles. Way to go states! -- Rektide 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
what about distributions of the different drive types? i presume diesel electric is still the most common, but i'd expect gas-turbine would be getting closer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rektide ( talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 7 May 2007
dunno the true origins of these words. both are used in french and english. who coined locomotive? Cliché Online 15:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing at all in this article (or, as far as I know, in the entire Wikipedia) about the engineer's cabin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L.K ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the two photos at the head of the article should be replaced. I having an IC loco and a steam loco next to the opening paragraph. However both of the current photos have issues. The Alco photo has a MoW truck obscuring part of the loco and the caption has redlinks. The GWR Grange has part of its tender cut off and is a little washed out. Am I being to picky, or is it worth looking for better photos for the lead? I think the current ones can be reused elsewhere in this article or in the appropriate sub-article. Gwernol 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
This
deserves a place in an article, but I can't see which it matches best, as there's no article I can see about locomotive workshops. Cheers, Mostlyharmless ( talk) 06:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
from the hydrail page, i left the 2 japanese projects out, 1 is a hybrid, the other is passenger car and i wasn't sure it should be included in this article. Cheers. Mion ( talk) 16:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The locomotive engineer article does not present sufficient information to stand on its own. That article has been in existence for over a year without becoming any more than a two-sentence stub. Unless a significant amount of information is added to the locomotive engineer article in the near future, there is no proper justification for maintaining it on its own. The merge was initially suggested with railroad engineer, but discussion on that talk page has recommended the merge be made with this article ( locomotive) instead. Neelix ( talk) 15:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the articles should be merged. In once case, the subject is a machine and in the other, the subject is the individual who is responsible for operating the machine. Two completely different topics.
Bigdumbdinosaur ( talk) 22:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This article needs some stats on the horsepower of various locomotives. I hear that it's astronomical. Lets get it into the article. Accurate figures, yet fascinating. A nice combination for any article.
Sean7phil ( talk) 02:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that the parry people mover reference should be moved to Railcar, and the Maglev to EMU. Will do so unless people get really upset here.-- Wickifrank ( talk) 16:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not true that gas turbines become less efficient with rotational speed. Their thermal efficiency increases with power output. An idling turbine is incredibly wasteful of fuel, but it generates the greatest work per unit of fuel when running at rated output, and that is at highest RPM. -- Coosbane ( talk) 23:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I've removed a comment from the article that disputes the caption attached to this image and left a note for the original photographer. Anyone else have a view? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 17:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
A new section "hydrogen" should be introduced the minute a Hydrogen_ICE (only) locomotive has been found to exist. KVDP ( talk) 10:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Locomotives-Roundhouse2.jpg Iankap99 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 ( talk • contribs)
I'm concerned about the accuracy of some diagrams recently added. I've started a discussion thread at WikiProject Trains#Locomotive diagram quality. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps that the best image to use as a steamlocomotive is one of the Kriegslokomotive. These were mass-produced and very cost-efficient. 91.182.198.88 ( talk) 10:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I was glad to see an animated picture on this page to explain the wheel linkages, but it would also be nice to have an image explaining the relationship between the burner and the boiler, as it is not at all clear from photos of the locomotives how heat is transferred to the whole of the boiler area. Anybody with images (or the skill to create those images)? Spiggot 21:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
In the Diesel-Electric section, you see this quote...
"It has been found impractical to build a gearbox which can cope with a power output of more than 400 horsepower (300 kW) without breaking, despite a number of attempts to do so."
This, as worded here, is erroneous. Helicopters are mass-produced, and their transmissions are designed to handle thousands of horsepower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.159.111 ( talk) 04:32, 7 April 2006
AGREED. Citation #20 is misleading and plain wrong. The term they should be using is diesel-electric, not hybrid. I should know, I'm on GE's hybrid locomotive system patent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesalic ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Folks, I came across This Article in a 1934 issue of Popular Science but I really don't know if it worth posting or actually where to post. It is beyond my pay grade. Hope someone can find it of use. But it is interesting for sure. Sounds similar to the logging locomotives of Cass, WV. Jack Jackehammond ( talk) 06:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
<
Hybrids
Main article: Hybrid Locomotive
>
This paragraph needs pulling apart and rebuilding. (I'm almost WP:BOLD enough to do it myself).
The 'Hybrid' dealt with in this article (as it stands) is not what is discussed in the Main article: 'Hybrid locomotive'. The latter includes a battery (in plain English) that the circumlocuters call an RESS.
86.183.9.238 ( talk) 12:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
<
Safety
Multiple units normally have completely independent braking systems on all cars, meaning the failure of the brakes on one car does not prevent the brakes throughout the train from operating safely.
>
This doesn't make very much sense to me. Is it claimed (by implication) that locomotives-plus-unpowered-cars have problems in this area? (If it is, what are they?)
86.183.9.238 ( talk) 04:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Locomotive/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I think it should receive an inferior rate, for two reasons:
|
Last edited at 18:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
One sentence reads: "In effect, such a locomotive is an electric locomotive which carries its own generating station along with it."
In a diesel locomotive, the traction generator and the traction motors act as an electrical transmission. In starting the train and at low speeds, the motors and the generator operate at low voltage but high current. High current translates into high torque. As the train accelerates, the operating current decreases, but the voltage increases. In this way, the locomotive is steadily shifting gears, by infinitesimal increments. There may be a certain speed where the motors are switched from series to parallel, making higher voltage at lower current available to the individual motors. Still, the basic shifting of gears occurs by a silent change in the voltage being generated.
This description is fairly complete for older locomotive designs, as when I worked in a locomotive factory in 1971-1974. Now there may be computerized controls and AC induction motors for traction, but the same idea will still hold: high current for high torque at low speeds, higher voltage but lower current at higher speeds. The total power = voltage*current and it must stay within the power available from the engine, and the generator rating.
The traditional electric locomotive has quite a different control system because it must work from a (more or less) constant voltage source, relying more on resistors to limit the motor voltage. With more electronic control involved, it is possible that the electric locomotive and the diesel-electric are somewhat more alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.124.3 ( talk) 05:02, 11 February 2005
This record is now held by the Spanish. 256.38 km/h (160 mph) Spain, Talgo XXI, 12 June 2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.227.31 ( talk) 12:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
This one sentence section contain little useful information and no links or refrence, so in my opinion is written at discretion. If there is no objection, I'll remove or merge it with other sections. Also, I suppose special-purpose locomotive should be included in section: Classification by use. So I did a merge. User:Dale Zhong 08:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I am beginning to wonder if we should split out the different types of locomotive into seperate Steam Locomotive, Diesel Locomotive, etc. pages. -- Morven 11:06, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
That might be a good idea if we left a paragraph or so, of information about the locomotive types on the locomotive page, but had links to their own articles which went into much more detail, but it would only be worth while if the split off articles had a lot more information. G-Man 11:10, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'm also increasingly of the opinion that there's a lot of stuff here that should be in the train or railway or whatever articles. I'll be thinking about refactoring over the next whatever.
-- Morven 07:19, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I notice that the definition of push-pull working given here (one engine at each end) is different from that given on the Push-pull page (engine at one end, and engine OR DRIVING CAB at the other). The first definition may be exact in the US, but certainly not in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolgiati ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
There's also a confusing note about how push-pull is infeasible in North America. It mentions a shortcoming of push-pull, but doesn't explain why that shortcoming is particular to North America, and the push-pull article lists many North American examples. Andrewlorente ( talk) 19:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Locomotive. 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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The steam section talks about coal resource exhaustion "especially in Europe". This is wrong to say the least. Most of Europe still has coal coming out of its ears but diesel is still (for the moment) vastly cheaper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.110.250 ( talk) 08:38, 18 May 2005
I agree. In fact the text used to strongly imply that steam ended because the coal ran out, which is clearly not the case. Coal is still plentiful in Europe, North America and China, which hasn't stopped the move to internal combustion and electric traction. Indeed, the end of steam was the (partial) cause of the end of the coal industry in some countries, not the other way around.
I've made some edits to reflect this, but more are needed. Gwernol 20:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
It would perhaps be better to explain in terms of efficiency and also time to start which is a very big issue and I suspect (but don't have references) for being one of the big reasons diesel shunters took off early on. 81.2.110.250 22:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Time to start is a big one for the switcher, especially.
Morven, I'd like to see that article: it would be a great addition. The labor-intensive nature of steam was a major reason for the switch to diesel. Another is the instant availability of diesel locomotives. You can switch one on and its ready to haul a train essentially immediately. A large steam locomotive can take 8-10 hours to prepare from cold. Many standard gauge steam locos were kept in full or partial steam overnight to overcome this, which of course meant that the locos weren't available for maintenance and were more costly in terms of fuel and the need for nightwatchmen to ensure safety.
In the UK at least, the passage of the Clean Air Act in the early 1950's (I think) was a major spur to the abandonment of steam. The infamous London smogs of the 1930's and 40's were mainly caused by the emissions from coal fires in private homes, but steam locomotives also contributed and were limited by the legislation. My mother recalls the winter before the Clean Air Act when 50,000 Londoners were said to have died from the foul combination of coal dust and fog in the air. Gwernol — Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 30 September 2005
Is this the proper place for such a long list of mostly old, unavailable books? -- Janke | Talk 17:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess nobody is changing the article, despite the numerous suggestions, due to neglect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.204.87 ( talk) 02:13, 5 April 2006
This barely conforms to wikipedia standards considering it's such an important article. Surely it should be a basic description of what a locomotive is, and then there should be links to the history of the locomotive, the diesel locomotive, the steam locomotive, and so forth.
What gets me is saying that "the first successful locomotives" were built by Richard Trevithick, as if to say there were locomotives that preceded his. But to my knowledge he invented the first locomotive period. This downplaying of the genius of one of the Cornish heroes is disgusting, and I demand that it be rephrased unless significant evidence can be brought forth that proves that there were unsuccessful locomotives before his. -- Badharlick 22:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The animated gif was originally added to this article by me, and now it's up for promotion on WP:FPC. However, there are some errors in the animation, as I point out here - anybody cares to comment, or replace the image with this one? (My only dislike for that one is the prominent signature...) -- Janke | Talk 22:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
mag lev vehicles have no motion provideing components in them they can only move useing specialised track which has as much components provideing motive power as the vehicle -- Oxyman42 — Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 25 April 2006
>The HST holds the world speed record for diesel traction
The russian have a diesel locomotive that did 273km/h. http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/ru/diesel/misc/tep80_sherbinka.jpg 213.178.107.244 19:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I've created a separate article for steam locomotive. Please visit it and give it the help it surely desparately needs. Most of all it needs a British/European perspective. Mangoe 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's about time we put the diesels in their own article. I'm going to try that tonight, and I'm going to (initially) make it all one big diesel locomotive article because I think it's going to be hard to talk about some aspects without ignoring the various transmission varieties. I think we're going to have to deal with multiple unit operation in a separate article. Mangoe 18:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
This article is more or less totally lacking in references. It was probably not so bad when the statements were mostly "common knowledge", but now we have someone claiming that "However the quality of the electricity produced during [regenerative] braking is usually too poor to be of much importance." We need a citation for that. Mangoe 12:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the the reference to Isambard Kingdom Brunel because as far as I can tell his importance to railroading lies in civil engineering and not locomotive design. Please do not restore the passage without amplifying it with discription of a specific contribution. Mangoe 13:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I took out a reference on the benefits of electrification from an advocacy site. This article needs real references, but not like that. It's clear that we are going to have to get together a set of references on electrification and compose them into something more sophisticated than the "more costly!" and "runs great!" stuff we are getting now. Mangoe 10:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
In general, I considered simply the following reasonement, based on elementary thermodynamics and engineering reasons:
I cite this part of the previous section I didn't notice at the moment, coming from an user that forgot to sign:
“ | Europe is a smaller part of the world than is North America | ” |
I think:
IMHO, phrases like these show the deep bias of US users, and mostly their lack of openmindness. It seems that US people cannot convince themselves that things in Europe can be far more advanced, sometimes. They cannot believe that they are currently an underdeveloped country as for railways. Until such a mentality will remain imperant here, articles like this one will remain in this poor state. -- Attilios 18:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I've found an appropriate page in the CIA Factbook [3] and will be putting in some real numbers. Mangoe 14:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
No need to ask me which I like best, we have 18-wheelers in North America that haul more than European freight trains. -- HarveyHenkelmann 15:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I have modified the page to include disadvantages of Locomotive's as well as their advantages. The same has been done to the multiple unit page for fairness Dellarb 10:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-- AGoon 10:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I note that user 63.245.177.253 changed "The first successful locomotives were built by ..." to "The first successful giant weiner locomotives were built by ...". Is there nothing that someone can do to remove this idiot from Wikipedia ... this identity does seem to have a history of this kind of behaviour to judge from his history of page changes. It really is time for authors on WP to be properly registered. ALECTRIC451 21:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Locomotive is also an OS X program decently popular among Ruby on Rails developers. Disambig? -- 64.241.69.167 21:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC) ( User:AlanH not signed in)
The last steam engine ceased operating in China on December 9th, 2005. You can look this up in Xinhua. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.204.87 ( talk) 03:09, 11 January 2006
Hehehe, I know boothbay maine USA has at least one still going, if only in circles. Way to go states! -- Rektide 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
what about distributions of the different drive types? i presume diesel electric is still the most common, but i'd expect gas-turbine would be getting closer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rektide ( talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 7 May 2007
dunno the true origins of these words. both are used in french and english. who coined locomotive? Cliché Online 15:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing at all in this article (or, as far as I know, in the entire Wikipedia) about the engineer's cabin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L.K ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the two photos at the head of the article should be replaced. I having an IC loco and a steam loco next to the opening paragraph. However both of the current photos have issues. The Alco photo has a MoW truck obscuring part of the loco and the caption has redlinks. The GWR Grange has part of its tender cut off and is a little washed out. Am I being to picky, or is it worth looking for better photos for the lead? I think the current ones can be reused elsewhere in this article or in the appropriate sub-article. Gwernol 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
This
deserves a place in an article, but I can't see which it matches best, as there's no article I can see about locomotive workshops. Cheers, Mostlyharmless ( talk) 06:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
from the hydrail page, i left the 2 japanese projects out, 1 is a hybrid, the other is passenger car and i wasn't sure it should be included in this article. Cheers. Mion ( talk) 16:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The locomotive engineer article does not present sufficient information to stand on its own. That article has been in existence for over a year without becoming any more than a two-sentence stub. Unless a significant amount of information is added to the locomotive engineer article in the near future, there is no proper justification for maintaining it on its own. The merge was initially suggested with railroad engineer, but discussion on that talk page has recommended the merge be made with this article ( locomotive) instead. Neelix ( talk) 15:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the articles should be merged. In once case, the subject is a machine and in the other, the subject is the individual who is responsible for operating the machine. Two completely different topics.
Bigdumbdinosaur ( talk) 22:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This article needs some stats on the horsepower of various locomotives. I hear that it's astronomical. Lets get it into the article. Accurate figures, yet fascinating. A nice combination for any article.
Sean7phil ( talk) 02:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that the parry people mover reference should be moved to Railcar, and the Maglev to EMU. Will do so unless people get really upset here.-- Wickifrank ( talk) 16:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not true that gas turbines become less efficient with rotational speed. Their thermal efficiency increases with power output. An idling turbine is incredibly wasteful of fuel, but it generates the greatest work per unit of fuel when running at rated output, and that is at highest RPM. -- Coosbane ( talk) 23:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I've removed a comment from the article that disputes the caption attached to this image and left a note for the original photographer. Anyone else have a view? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 17:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
A new section "hydrogen" should be introduced the minute a Hydrogen_ICE (only) locomotive has been found to exist. KVDP ( talk) 10:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Locomotives-Roundhouse2.jpg Iankap99 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 ( talk • contribs)
I'm concerned about the accuracy of some diagrams recently added. I've started a discussion thread at WikiProject Trains#Locomotive diagram quality. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps that the best image to use as a steamlocomotive is one of the Kriegslokomotive. These were mass-produced and very cost-efficient. 91.182.198.88 ( talk) 10:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I was glad to see an animated picture on this page to explain the wheel linkages, but it would also be nice to have an image explaining the relationship between the burner and the boiler, as it is not at all clear from photos of the locomotives how heat is transferred to the whole of the boiler area. Anybody with images (or the skill to create those images)? Spiggot 21:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
In the Diesel-Electric section, you see this quote...
"It has been found impractical to build a gearbox which can cope with a power output of more than 400 horsepower (300 kW) without breaking, despite a number of attempts to do so."
This, as worded here, is erroneous. Helicopters are mass-produced, and their transmissions are designed to handle thousands of horsepower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.159.111 ( talk) 04:32, 7 April 2006
AGREED. Citation #20 is misleading and plain wrong. The term they should be using is diesel-electric, not hybrid. I should know, I'm on GE's hybrid locomotive system patent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesalic ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Folks, I came across This Article in a 1934 issue of Popular Science but I really don't know if it worth posting or actually where to post. It is beyond my pay grade. Hope someone can find it of use. But it is interesting for sure. Sounds similar to the logging locomotives of Cass, WV. Jack Jackehammond ( talk) 06:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
<
Hybrids
Main article: Hybrid Locomotive
>
This paragraph needs pulling apart and rebuilding. (I'm almost WP:BOLD enough to do it myself).
The 'Hybrid' dealt with in this article (as it stands) is not what is discussed in the Main article: 'Hybrid locomotive'. The latter includes a battery (in plain English) that the circumlocuters call an RESS.
86.183.9.238 ( talk) 12:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
<
Safety
Multiple units normally have completely independent braking systems on all cars, meaning the failure of the brakes on one car does not prevent the brakes throughout the train from operating safely.
>
This doesn't make very much sense to me. Is it claimed (by implication) that locomotives-plus-unpowered-cars have problems in this area? (If it is, what are they?)
86.183.9.238 ( talk) 04:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Locomotive/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I think it should receive an inferior rate, for two reasons:
|
Last edited at 18:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
One sentence reads: "In effect, such a locomotive is an electric locomotive which carries its own generating station along with it."
In a diesel locomotive, the traction generator and the traction motors act as an electrical transmission. In starting the train and at low speeds, the motors and the generator operate at low voltage but high current. High current translates into high torque. As the train accelerates, the operating current decreases, but the voltage increases. In this way, the locomotive is steadily shifting gears, by infinitesimal increments. There may be a certain speed where the motors are switched from series to parallel, making higher voltage at lower current available to the individual motors. Still, the basic shifting of gears occurs by a silent change in the voltage being generated.
This description is fairly complete for older locomotive designs, as when I worked in a locomotive factory in 1971-1974. Now there may be computerized controls and AC induction motors for traction, but the same idea will still hold: high current for high torque at low speeds, higher voltage but lower current at higher speeds. The total power = voltage*current and it must stay within the power available from the engine, and the generator rating.
The traditional electric locomotive has quite a different control system because it must work from a (more or less) constant voltage source, relying more on resistors to limit the motor voltage. With more electronic control involved, it is possible that the electric locomotive and the diesel-electric are somewhat more alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.124.3 ( talk) 05:02, 11 February 2005
This record is now held by the Spanish. 256.38 km/h (160 mph) Spain, Talgo XXI, 12 June 2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.227.31 ( talk) 12:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
This one sentence section contain little useful information and no links or refrence, so in my opinion is written at discretion. If there is no objection, I'll remove or merge it with other sections. Also, I suppose special-purpose locomotive should be included in section: Classification by use. So I did a merge. User:Dale Zhong 08:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I am beginning to wonder if we should split out the different types of locomotive into seperate Steam Locomotive, Diesel Locomotive, etc. pages. -- Morven 11:06, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
That might be a good idea if we left a paragraph or so, of information about the locomotive types on the locomotive page, but had links to their own articles which went into much more detail, but it would only be worth while if the split off articles had a lot more information. G-Man 11:10, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'm also increasingly of the opinion that there's a lot of stuff here that should be in the train or railway or whatever articles. I'll be thinking about refactoring over the next whatever.
-- Morven 07:19, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I notice that the definition of push-pull working given here (one engine at each end) is different from that given on the Push-pull page (engine at one end, and engine OR DRIVING CAB at the other). The first definition may be exact in the US, but certainly not in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolgiati ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
There's also a confusing note about how push-pull is infeasible in North America. It mentions a shortcoming of push-pull, but doesn't explain why that shortcoming is particular to North America, and the push-pull article lists many North American examples. Andrewlorente ( talk) 19:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Locomotive. 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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)