Talk:Diesel locomotive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Trains Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
High This article has been rated as high-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of the Locomotives task force.

Contents

[edit] verb-noun agreement

In the six paragraph of the history section someone seems to have had trouble with whether there was one unit, or there were mutiple units. I can't correct the problem, because I don't know how many units there were. Just thought I'd let y'all know. I'm new at this.Georgewolferm 01:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diesel-electrics

I'm moving this section into a new article. Currently, diesel-electric locomotive redirects to locomotive, which is totally unacceptable. A redirect to a specific section of an article (i.e. Diesel locomotive#Diesel-electric) is impossible, and the section is big enough to stand on its own, so I'm moving it out. —lensovet–talk – 19:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving it back. Diesel-electrics are the dominant form, so it makes sense simply to redirect diesel-electric to diesel. Mangoe 01:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of which, why exactly are Diesel-electrics the "dominant form" (indeed, why do they exist at all) when it seems to me you could just simply bolt an engine to a transmission and run it that way (as is done with millions of cars and trucks)? I can't help but think that a system which converts mechanical power into electrical power, only to convert it right back again, is wasteful and inefficient. (Not to mention heavier, since you have the added weight of a big generator plus the traction motors.) The only apparent explanation in this long article is a brief statement that "Diesel-mechanical propulsion is limited by the difficulty of building a reasonably sized transmission able to cope with the power and torque required to move a heavy train..." I have a hard time believing that. They can build huge locomotives with huge engines, but they can't build a huge transmission to go along with it? Somebody help me out here. 24.6.66.193 10:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Above a certain point anything mechanical gets really heavy and clunky, not to mention difficult to operate at really slow speed. Any heavy loco has to start from zero - and an electric motor's torque is at its maximum at low speed. Other systems are still used - hydraulic, direct drive etc, but for getting on 50 years, most heavy freight locos have had electric traction motors, however the power has been obtained. This advantage has increased with modern power electronics, to the point where on a gradient an underpowered train will still move, even if its rate of progress is <= 1ms. Modern warships and cruise liners are also rapidly changing to the same principles. I think we can assume the people designing them have done the calculations.

[edit] Diagram

I think that this article needs a diagram to show how a diesel locomotive works. It will also make this article more attractive. Right now I can't make one so I'm asking for somebody else to draw or create it. It dosen't have to be a motion diagram. (though motion is cooler then still :) ) 24.182.35.93 17:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Antmanbrian

I definitely agree. Mangoe 16:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History and the globalization issue

Part of the problem here is that much of the info under "diesel electric" actually belongs in the history part. Mangoe 15:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and move it. it's generally a mess, i think, so any sort of real organization would be a plus —lensovet–talk – 03:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I've moved it, leaving behind some of the British material in the process unfortunately. SOmeone needs to provide a non-American historical perspective. Mangoe 18:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow that's a lot of info that got taken out and not moved...any reason why? —lensovet–talk – 20:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Mostly because I couldn't figure out what to do with it. It seemed like a bunch of factoids rather than something that gave any sort of historical perspective. If someone who knows British and can give it a better historical context, they should restore it appropriately. Mangoe 21:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I just made a major addition to the history section. Unfortunately, I wasn't signed-in when I added it. I'll watch this page for awhile, please let me know if there are any problems.

-Jagan123 22:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Changed reference style. Jagan123 01:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I see where the tag indicating globalization issues has again been embedded in the Diesel locomotive article. The complain (once again) is that the article is too slanted to UK and US viewpoints. Unless other authors who are not UK or US/North American railroad enthusiasts start contributing, the alleged UK/US bias will continue. We can only write about what we know. I can't speak for the others but my railroad experience relates to North American, and it is that viewpoint from which I write.BDD 20:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.66.193 (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] El. vs. D.E.

I tried again to add a passage clarifying performance difference between el. and diesel locomotives. I seem it has no bias and no negative connotations, at all. If Mangoe feels desire to delete it, please at least put it into some paragraph like that of Advantage/Disadvanteges of Electric locomotive (the fact that the Diesel el. article has not it should make you think....). Ciao and let me know. --Attilios 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted this comment over at the electric locomotive article as well.

As far as advantages or disadvantages go, I seem to detect an inherent bias in what I have read. In the large scale model railroad world we call it "steam snobbery." All machines have pros and cons, and in the case of locomotives, one railway's pros are another railroad's cons. In other words, the advantages of one technology over the other matter only in the context in which the technology is considered. For example, the electric locomotive has zero advantages compared to steam or Diesel power in areas where there is no electricity. For that reason, I tend to feel that an advantages/disadvantages section may ultimately be of minimal value.

BDD 00:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this US biased or UK biased?

If its both it kinda does have a world outlook. albeit a limited scope, but world look nnon the less.

---

Some bias is almost inevitable, as the US and UK were where much of the early development took place. Also, most Diesel-electric designs are based on the Electro-Motive Corporation pattern of mating the Winton distillate engine to a Ward Leonard type electric drive. The basics have remained the same, even though the technology has greatly progressed. BDD

[edit] World War I locos

I believe that all of the internal combustion locos built for the Allies in World War One were petrol (gasoline) driven. Diesel locos weren't introduced until 1918 after the war had ended. Therefore I've removed the reference to Simplex locos of WWI from the diesel-mechanical section. Should this article be renamed to "Internal Combustion Locomotive" so we can cover both petrol and diesel powered locos? Otherwise its going to be hard to properly cover the subject as the early history is all about petrol-mechanical locos before the switch to diesel. Gwernol 12:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is safe to treat petrol/distillate-powered locomotives as a variant on diesels. They have invariably been so treated in every work I've ever read. Mangoe 12:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Well technically they are quite different and from a practical perspective they are dissimilar (I say, having driven both). Most importantly there's the historical story to be told: petrol locos predated diesel locos and were the first true internal combustion locos. There are still (a few) petrol-mechanical locomotives in service and describing them as diesels is incorrect. The only chnage I'm proposing is to retitle this article to Internal combution locomotive with Diesel locomotive fredirecting here. Gwernol 13:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More specific information needed

Can more specific information on diesel locomotives be included, such as weight, materials of contruction, manufacturers, etc? Thx Cookiebird 18:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Cookiebird

I think that sort of information may unnecessarily dilute content. There are already many sites that provide that sort of data.

BDD 06:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK/US Perspective

This tag keeps popping up, yet it doesn't appear anyone who is not in the UK or US is contributing anything.

BDD 00:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Diesel-electric" vs. "diesel-electric"

At least one other editor has reproached yours truly for capitalizing Diesel in articles when not directly referring to the inventor himself. The justification for the reproach was apparently prior use, in which because the editor and others had downcased Diesel, such usage was automatically correct.

A survey of some railroad printed matter I have in my possession reveals that the customary usage is to capitalize Dr. Diesel's surname when referring to his invention and the locomotive that it powers. For example, in the EMD Enginemen's Operating Manual, Model F7 (EMD publication 2310, 4th edition, 1950 -- I have an original copy), article 100 states as follows:

"Each unit has a 16-cylinder 2-cycle Model 567B Diesel engine which drives the main generator and auxiliaries described later." (Emphasis added.)

This is exactly how it is printed, including capitalization.

Later on in the same manual, article 307, which discusses operating the F7 in conjunction with a helper steam locomotive, it is stated:

"...it must be known that the steam locomotive can and will pull, as its share of the load, the tonnage of the train which is in excess of the maximum continuous tonnage rating of the Diesel locomotive. (Emphasis added.)

In fact, nowhere in this manual is the word Diesel not capitalized.

There are other usages (non-railroad) where the name of the inventor is capitalized when refering to the invention. For example, the article on Schottky diodes capitalizes the inventor's name. I see this sort of usage in many places in Wikipedia. Therefore, it is my opinion that when referring to a locomotive that is powered by a compression ignition engine invented by a certain German inventor, it should be referred to as a Diesel locomotive.

BDD 06:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed globalise tags

I've removed the globalise tags and comment:

{tags were here}

ESPECIALLY HISTORY SECTION DEALS WITH GE AND OTHER US MANUFACTURER AS IF THEY WERE THE SOLE IN THE WORLD

I've done this for the following reasons:

  • I've read through the article, and as it now stands I simply don't believe that it has any major global bias.
  • The history section complained about above, for example, starts with a German inventor, goes onto a Swiss context, then the US. In doing this, it is following the way that the diesel locomotive was developed over the years, with different countries driving the development forward at different times.

-- Chris j wood 10:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Ive removed the globalise tags here as i'm trying to clear up the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:UK-centric page and the tags caused this talk page to appear on it. :). Xeolyte (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Language butchery

I reverted Suckindiesel's changes to the dynamic braking section. His changes to the language were not only unnecessary but, in my opinion, made the subject matter murky in content. Exactly why he felt these changes were necessary completely escapes me. BDD 04:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I consider the use of the term Language butchery to describe my revision as ignorant & insulting. I merely limited my revision to the removal of several instances of passive voice, the removal of verbiage and the substitution of a more relevant link, i.e. Dynamic instead of Regenerative. After all, Diesel-Electrics use Dynamic not Regen. The comparison to automobile down-shifting does not seem very relevant or informative either, as of course no gear shifting is involved with this form of braking. However if you're happy to use ten words when one would suffice, so be it. Suckindiesel 20:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


I was going to be polite about it, but afraid not. Once again I've reverted Suckindiesel's edits, as he seems to think that his version of the English language is the correct one, and apparently enjoys mindless and pointless editing, as well as the introduction of misspellings. For example, how did he manage to morph the word skillful into skilfull? None of the dictionaries that I checked show such a spelling.

Also, he removed a lot of links that are germaine to the article, and altered typography so that punctuation associated with quoted words was incorrectly positioned in the text. For example, I found

an effect referred to as "lugging."

altered to

an effect referred to as "lugging".

The second version is contrary to accepted typographical practice (check a typography style manual if you think I'm wrong). Other needless rewording and grammar changes, again, introduced murkiness that previously didn't exist.

The use of what he thinks is excessive verbiage is often necessary in articles of this type in order to adequately explain technical concepts to non-technical readers. The seemingly excess words in the article help a reader not familiar with the workings of locomotives by relating locomotive operation to things that the reader does know (e.g., comparing dynamic braking to engine compression braking). One cannot assume that everyone who reads these articles is an expert like Suckindiesel.

BDD 13:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Well, you’re certainly living up to your name anyway. No, I didn’t really expect politeness from somebody who throws around terms like language butchery. Wikipedia is open to anybody to edit, however you seem to take particular exception to any attempt by others to edit your own contribution. Is this what the problem really is?
Spelling
Blindly reverting an earlier edit throws out the good with the bad, you really should be more selective e.g. your reverts have re-introduced such miss-spellings as:

  • electro-pnumatic
  • incompatable
  • Hydralic

Skilful v Skillful

  • Both uses are acceptable in Wiki, (UK v US spelling)

Links
I didn’t removed a lot of links that were germaine (sic) to the article, but I must admit that I may have pruned too hard and removed some that were germane. Repeating the same, e.g. locomotive, link three times in one para is unnecessary and needlessly repetitive, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) for guidance.
Typography
Either version is acceptable in Wiki, again it comes down to UK v US usage. To quote Quotation mark#Punctuation: "The traditional convention in American English is for commas and periods to be included inside the quotation marks, even if they are not part of the quoted sentence, while the British style shows clearly whether or not the punctuation is part of the quoted phrase."
Verbiage
Surely even you must admit that phrases such as "The aggregate effect of the above is to cause each.." is both overblown & bloated, not adding anything to the understanding of the general reader. My own substitute "This causes each.." is much cleaner & to the point.

Despite your attempt at sarcasm I don’t claim to be an expert in anything, least of all English or Locos. That’s why I have so far refrained from correcting some of your technical descriptions, my own knowledge may not be sufficient. However, I once earned my living overhauling traction motors, mainly EMD D47/57/77 series & older european models. Never once did I see a series wound traction motor re-configured as a shunt motor as you describe. I may be wrong, I haven’t seen everything. Suckindiesel 02:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diesel engine

Not a particularly important point, perhaps, but I've always called a Diesel locomotive a 'Diesel engine'. Although it may not be strictly correct, this usage seems to be a reasonably common (perhaps it's British, but I'm not sure). An example is the children's favourite from Thomas and friends, the Diesel Engine [1].

Bathrobe 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a fairly common usage, yes, but only in general society, and in particular, BritEng. The term is however ambiguous between the locomotive and the Diesel engine, that is, the actual type of engine.
Jb17kx 10:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diesel steam coupling

Commons:Image:Snoqualmie Depot coupling.jpg
Commons:Image:Snoqualmie Depot coupling.jpg

I took this picture, but I'm way outside my area of expertise. I believe that it is the coupling between a diesel-steam locomotive and its water car. If it is, it's probably useful as an illustration here or in a related article. If not, would someone please correct my description on the image page? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)