Talk:Diesel locomotive/Archive 1

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)

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) 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.

A few observations about the issues of Diesel loco transmissions and the discussion above: The main issue is tractive effort - the available force to pull a train. To start a train from zero requires significant force and a direct mechanical transmission would require very low gearing to achieve this and this would limit the top speed of the train to a few km/h unless a multi-speed transmission was used. With direct transmission the locomotive would also require an enormous clutch to allow the engine to start and run without being connected to the wheels. Because of the difficulties of such a mechanical design for anything other than a low speed low power locomotive other transmission types were developed. The diesel hydraulic transmission generally utilises a torque convertor to provide a continuously variable gear ratio that allows low speed starts, engine starts and increasing speeds. Many of these types of transmissions also use an additional torque convertor in parallel to provide higher speed operation by draining oil from the low speed convertor and filling the high speed convertor. (low power applications such as diesel railcars often used a direct mechanical connection for high speed with a "lock up clutch" short circuiting the torque convertor but these vehicles only operated at a maximum of 400hp per transmission so not suitable for locomotive work)

The diesel-electric has been so successful as this transmission is so flexible at providing for the traction needs of railway locomotives. Certainly the diesel engine can easily be started without being connected to the wheels but also full engine output can be generated at zero speed by running the engine at maximum rpm. This power is then available to the electric transmission. The perhaps surprising thing is that the electric transmission is not so inefficient that it is awful by comparison to even a mechanical transmission. As mentioned below, a typical gearset could have an efficiency of above 90% per set depending on type and may need a number of sets of gears at low speed to get a train moving. This would also include the final drive to the axle which would necessarily be a ninety degree drive usually using bevel gears of some type. Many electric machines have efficiencies approaching or exceeding 90% so the overall effect is that there is not that much difference.

The electric transmission however provides a massive starting tractive effort that gets the train moving and this is way beyond that possible for a steam engine of similar horsepower to the diesel electric. The DC traction motors used initially are a series motor with commutator that provides a very high starting torque. These are being replaced now with AC induction motors which give a higher performance and are more robust and reliable. The other outstanding benefit for a diesel electric locomotive is that the CONTROL of traction is far superior to any alternative transmission type. Each traction motor can be controlled electronically to ensure that maximum use of the available adhesion is made at all times without wheelslip. This type of control allows a far more reliable operation for railways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brimacl (talk • contribs) 02:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally heavy trucks, over 100 tons, use diesel electric propulsion systems. Gear sets lose 3-5 per set so any gear train suitable for the range would have both efficiency and bulk issues. As more efficient magnetic materials are developed this advantage will only increase so expect to see more appliactions.

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)

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).

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)

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

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)

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)


 * This information is given in many of the individual locomotive articles. Biscuittin (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

"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)

The use of Diesel vs diesel should now be avoided. BDD's reference to a 1950 publication is an anachronism as Dr Diesel invented the the Diesel cycle not the modern form of the engine. Thus we have diesel engines that use the Diesel cycle in various forms and with many improvements since his first idea was of using coal dust as fuel.

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:


 * Pedantically, they cannot both be correct (see primarily)


 * 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)

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: Skilful v Skillful
 * electro-pnumatic
 * incompatable
 * Hydralic

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

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: "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)

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.

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)

Diesel steam coupling
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)
 * I think this a photo of the US Plywood Corporation 2-6-6-2 Steam Locomotive. In the photo at Northwest Railway Museum it is shown coupled to a diesel locomotive but they are two separate locomotives. Biscuittin (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * from picture only it looks like a steam loc tender and extra watercar to me . Wdl1961 (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is the engine I think it is then it looks like a tank/tender engine. The fuel is carried in a bunker on the engine but the water is in a separate tender. Biscuittin (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm intrigued by the pipe at the top -- looks rather rigid to me. Lots of angle bends, just like my house plumbing! What's it for? -- EdJogg (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While this steam based topic is almost completely off topic here, I'll answer anyhow...It would appear to be a steam pipe, possibly to keep the water in the tank thawed in cold weather, possibly for heating (trailing) passenger cars. Most of the piping unions visible are "flexible unions", allowing the pipe to rotate freely and flex slightly at these points. This type of piping was commonly used between steam locomotives and their tenders. Similar piping was used between the Union Pacifics GE gas turbine locomotives and their tenders, as well as between the A and B sections of the 8500 hp version.  Wuh  Wuz  Dat  17:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I had a suspicion it was something like that, but it's good to have it confirmed. My understanding (based on British practice) was that steam heating pipes between coaching stock were flexible, looking very similar to the thick rubbery pipes used for vacuum brakes. Such pipes also connected to the locomotive (including, bringing it back on topic!) the early BR diesel locomotives that were fitted with steam heating boilers. -- EdJogg (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Advantages + Disadvantages ?
Can we please list the advantages and disadvantages of Diesel-Electric engines? I came across this page hoping to know what the advantages are, but didnt learn any advantages! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.43.51 (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Diesel-hydraulic drive

 * Secondly, the factor of adhesion is better meaning higher starting tractive effort relative to the locomotive weight. This is because in a diesel-electric all driven axles are driven by individual electric motors and can lose grip individually whereas in a diesel-hydraulic all axles are interconnected via shafts and universal joints. Thus, all axles must rotate at the same speed which makes individual slipping of axles impossible.

The assumption that rigidly connecting all wheelsets will improve adhesion is a fallacy. The individual who wrote the above needs to check his/her facts before making such an unsupported statement.

The slippage of one wheelset in an electric propulsion system will have little effect on the remaining wheelsets, as the output power of the main generator is equally distributed to all traction motors (neglecting I2R losses in the cables and switchgear). In the absence of a wheelslip detection and control system, slippage at one wheelset will tend to be self-limiting, as the counter-EMF generated by the corresponding traction motor as its RPM increases will tend to reduce current flow in that one motor, producing a corresponding reduction in torque. The remaining motors will continue to produce whatever torque they can from the available generator output. As a result, the factor of adhesion for the remaining wheelsets will not change at all. In any case, present-day electric propulsion designs incorporate sophisticated wheelslip detection features that correct for both single wheelset slippage and synchronous slip.

Speaking of synchronous slip, a loss of adhesion at one wheelset in a locomotive using hydrostatic propulsion (i.e., Diesel-hydraulic drive) will apply a correspondingly higher torque to the remaining wheelsets (owing to Pascal's law of uniform pressure distribution in a closed system), encouraging them to slip as well. If rail conditions are marginal, a synchronous slip will occur, causing a complete loss of adhesion. This characteristic, as well as the generally lower power transmission efficiency of hydrostatic systems as compared to mechanical or electric propulsion, is why Diesel-hydraulic propulsion has not found its way into many large road units.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Re Diesel-hydraulic v diesel-electric adhesion, neither points of view are supported by any refs & therefore come down to a matter of opinion. However, the inability of one axle to slip does "seem" to offer better adhesion, but is this the case?

The slippage of one axle in a diesel-eletric is not as clear-cut as described above. Traction motor speed is not inherintly self limiting, due to the characteristics of the series wound motor which tend to increase in speed when their load is removed, i.e. when slipping. The power to the remaing motors, depends, in part, on how the motors are interconnected.

Even if all motors are connected in parallel with each other, i.e. each motor connected directly to the MG, slippage of one axle will result in power reduction to the remaining motors due to the action of the wheel slide detection system.

The situation gets more complicated if the motors are interconnected in a series or a series/parallel arrangement. Slippage of one axle will then result in most of the MG voltage being developed across this motor, increasing its tendency to slip further, very little voltage will appear across the other motor connected in series, basically only that due to I2R, considerably reducing its power. Both motors will continue to share the same current, as they are interconnected in series, which can fool older wheelslide detection systems which work on current comparison as a means of slip detection. Suckindiesel (talk)

Re: the discussion above, firstly there seems to be a misunderstanding about the type of drive described as "diesel-hydraulic". While there may be some equipment operating somewhere with hydraulic motors on each axle, the usual diesel hydraulic utilises a hydraulic connection to the diesel engine and a mechanical connection to all axles. This means that a diesel hydraulic will have either all wheels slip in syncronisation or one whole bogie (truck if you are from USA) when the locomotive has two diesel engines such as the Krauss-Maffei units used some time ago on the Southern Pacific railroad. With diesel electric locomotives there is a risk of a series wound motor taking off if it slips and so if there is wheelslip in the very early diesels the diesel engine has the power reduced slightly in addition to the electrical controls mentioned to try to ensure motor speed is held reasonable and yet tractive effort is maintained. There are cases on record however of a diesel electric locomotive "birdcaging" all six traction motors when adhesion was lost on all axles. This is because the wheelslip control system compares motor currents between motors to detect wheelslip. Modern locomotives such as EMD Super Series and the like use some sort of absolute reference to ground speed (radar on EMD locoes) and controls each motor to operate at a speed that is closely related to ground speed. (not exactly ground speed as the higher adhesion is often achieved within the creep region of wheel/rail interface) This type of control means that the diesel electric transmission can generally deliver a higher adhesion before slipping than a diesel hydraulic hence the more widespread use of diesel electric. I don't have access to a range of adhesion values for diesel hydraulic but would not expect them to exceed about 25%. The diesel electrics are above 30% and the newer AC transmissions are expected to achieve upwards of 40%. (I am new to this so sorry if my details don't come out in the edit page)  ( brimacl)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brimacl (talk • contribs) 03:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

torque converter -rewrite or refs
the torque converter described here is not the same as he wiki torque converter or what is used in cars .needs refs for what is there  or total rewrite.

Wdl1961 (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

removed overloading will cause efficiency
On the other hand, overloading will cause efficiency loss due to the prime mover being forced to run too slowly for the rate at which fuel is being consumed, an effect referred to as "lugging." Lugging may cause abnormally high cylinder pressures during combustion, the emission of excessive smoke in the exhaust and, if allowed to continue, could result in severe mechanical damage.

Wdl1961 (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Lugging does not happen here in diesel electric locs. maybe needs general article in diesel trucks?

Wdl1961 (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Is that a fact or an opinion?


 * Lugging can occur in Diesel-electric locomotives due to control system malfunction. For example, back when main generator excitation was controlled by a mechanical load regulator, episodes of over-excitation would occur if the load regulator got stuck following a period of full throttle operation (a sticking load regulator was usually a sign of poor maintenance).  With the load regulator positioned to produce a high level of excitation but the throttle at a lower power setting and the engine running at a lower speed, the governor, in attempting to maintain an engine speed that corresponds to the engineer's throttle position, will react to the excessive load by increasing the fuel rate.


 * The problem, of course, is that the the fuel rate is now excessive for the volume of air being aspirated, causing a smoky exhaust. More seriously, the excessive fuel rate increases peak cylinder pressures, imposing extra stress on the engine's lower end.  That condition is called lugging, regardless of what the engine is propelling.  The negative effect of lugging on a locomotive's engine is the same as it would be on a truck engine being forced to operating in too high a gear for the road speed and load.


 * I reverted your edit. It would be appreciated if you could check your facts before adding to or deleting from technical articles.  Thanks!

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

in europe lugging is when the drive supplies energy to the engine at low speed .not good for universal joints.with parts failure anything can happen and seen it happen.ever check frequency or source?. smoking is due to dirty injectors but mostimes due to maladjusted fuel pumps and governor or turbo lag.never saw much of it working with diesels in europe and ships for five years.i never had a dirty injector i did not fix (once or twice).my mb only smoked white down from high point 14000ft in colorado us. ship diesel and torque converter can not lug.t=knp3 or t=knp5.real diesels (not made by gxx and fxx) do not get mechanical failures due to too much fuel ,only black smoke.maybe some people who write something are not always correct.

i did get a bsee in the us and see my user page.i did look at yours. good luck. Wdl1961 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Diesel-hydraulic
""Diesel-hydraulic multiple units, a less arduous duty, often use a simplification of this system, with a torque converter for the lower speed ranges and a fluid coupling for the high speed range.[citation needed] A fluid coupling is similar to a torque converter but it lacks the stator. The output torque is equal to the input torque regardless of the ratio of input to output speed; loading the output shaft results not in torque multiplication and constant power throughput but in reduction of the input speed with consequent lower power throughput. (In car terms, the fluid coupling provides top gear and the torque converter provides all the lower gears.) The result is that the power available at the rail is reduced when operating in the lower speed part of the fluid coupling range, but the less arduous duty of a passenger multiple unit compared to a locomotive makes this an acceptable trade-off for reduced mechanical complexity.[citation needed]""

is that not a torque convertor without the fluid coupling ??torque convertor at high rpm= fluid coupling.

Wdl1961 (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that this ignores a number of transmission designs. Not all have a torque convertor and fluid coupling. A more generic treatment is required that allows for all designs. I suggest that the GM Alison transmission, Twin disc and Voith transmissions at least be studied to see some typical variations in design.Brimacl (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

global
in west europe most main lines are electified, therefore diesel locomotives are not that important and little coverage is given. the global tag should be removed.

Wdl1961 (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Removed globalise tags ref 11 above.old issue Wdl1961 (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Section - diesel electric locomotive
Added textboox tag - not even a good one.

1. "In mechanical terms, a Diesel locomotive is a "constant horsepower" machine. In other words, a Diesel locomotive's power output at any given throttle setting would (in theory) be the same without regard to road speed, as long as the unit is actually in motion"

Simply it isn't a constant horsepower device. The output horsepower of an engine can be varied.

Why is the description written like "how to drive a diesel train?" it's tto verbose and seems to be describing a locomotive from the 1960's not the 2000's

The first section seems ok Diesel_locomotive - the rest is possibly inacurate, far too verbose, and far too much like a 'how to'.FengRail (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever about the other comments, "inacurate" it's not. It is "a constant horsepower device" within the terms of description given, i.e. of course the power output can be varied, like any engine, but it is substantially constant for each fixed throttle position. Because the engine isn't mechanically coupled to the wheels, engine speed (RPM) is unaffected by road speed. The control system ensures a constant power output from the gen, over a wide range of voltage & current. Look at the graph of throttle 8 power to see wahat I mean. The product of voltage & current (V x I = W) is constant over the operating range. In practice, gen output starts off at lower end of graph (low volts/high current) & moves up slope of graph with increasing road speed. Power remains the same. Suckindiesel (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The first sentence "In mechanical terms, a Diesel locomotive is a "constant horsepower" machine" is just wrong, the rest of the god knows how many pages is just trying to wipe it's ass.FengRail (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Vulgarity aside, just where is article incorrect? I've tried to explain where the "constant horsepower" idea comes from. Admittedly, the article could be clearer so why not have a go at editing it yourself. Suckindiesel (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * TRITE
 * Diesel engines are not " fundamentally constant horsepower machines " - thats the problem. 213.249.232.187 (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Diesel engines are not " fundamentally constant horsepower machines " - thats the problem. 213.249.232.187 (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Never said it was, nor does the article, which of course could explain things a lot more clearly. But to repeat my earlier comment: "It is a constant horsepower device within the terms of description given", i.e. it's the combination of the engine & its control system, as used in this application, that ensures a substantially constant HP in each throttle position. Suckindiesel (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I suggested TRITE - constant horsepower for a fixed throttle position is not the same as quote "In mechanical terms, a Diesel locomotive is a "constant horsepower" machine." (note the full stop) - also what does "in mechanical terms" actually mean - its like a example of Avoid peacock terms or even Wikipuffery.
 * There are various other problems throughout - why for instance is the comparison with steam engines in this section - such a comparision applies to all forms of diesel locomotive - likewise a discussion of the effect of the throttle and goverer applie to other forms of diesel locomotive.
 * I would be nice if the whole diesel electric section was started again.FengRail (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, far too long, contains, in my opinion, some errors and dubious explanations/comparisons. Probably suffering from the input of too many editors, each one protecting his/her "two cents worth". Attempts at significant edits have resulted in abuse & reverts. Suckindiesel (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree, the entire section is far too full of technical details that will confuse the average reader, "constant horsepower" being the worst fallacy of the bunch. Portions of the "control" subsection are written from a very EMD-centric point of view, especially where it mentions the "LR" (Load Regulator).


 * The last few times I have dealt with an article (or section) in need of revision this badly, I copied the section to a sub-page of the article, and it was edited there, replacing the section on the "live" article only after everyone was satisfied with the results. I have just copied the entire diesel-electric section to Diesel locomotive/diesel-electric, for use as a community sandbox for this much needed revision.


 * I would suggest starting by trashing the "constant horsepower" garbage, and would suggest that a better place to start would be comparing the electric transmission to an Infinitely Variable Transmission. I would also suggest breaking the explanation down into sections, for straight DC, AC-DC, and AC traction, to show how the technology has evolved. Good Luck and Happy Editing, Gentlemen. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no reason why User:Wuhwuzdat/sandbox could not have been used as a community sandbox. But since you object, I have re-instated the text to Diesel locomotive/diesel-electric. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The use of my userspace for this would have implied a degree of "ownership" of the sandbox, while placing it in it's current "neutral" location does not. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have/will start attempting to tify the article - starting with easily improvable stuff, before getting onto any heavy changes.
 * as part of this see my merge proposal below

Merge
Proposing merging the section Diesel_locomotive into Multiple-unit train control

See Talk:Multiple-unit_train_control (also proposing merge of Multiple working)

ie having Multiple-unit train control as the main article for this topic, whilst keeping a link from this page with a brief (one paragraph) description - reason: separate article already exists - and is notable, this article is big, and would benefit from some "division of labour", plus topic can be dealt with in more detail in its own article.

At the same time I might as well say that I would like to propose splitting 'diesel hydraulic' and 'diesel electric' locomotives into separate more detailed articles at a later point - for similar reasons. That would leave this article giving more of an overview - with the new articles able to go into "as much detail as you like"... (I've already started on writing "diesel hydraulic locomotives") FengRail (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the idea of a merge, however I do feel that a very basic explanation of MU should remain here. Also, as with the rest of this article, there are some errors, as Diesel MU did NOT originate with the FT, having been used 10 years earlier between the 2 units of CN 9000, built in 1929 by Westinghouse. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes agree - there should always be a basic explanation under a tag, though not everyone does it.FengRail (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Section in this article should link to main one elsewhere -- diesel locomotive should be parent article for many sub-topics covered in more detail on other pages.
 * See my comments at Multiple working explaining why that article should NOT be merged. -- EdJogg (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

examples of diesel-hydraulic
the section on diesel-hydraulic seems to suggest that this is old technology. On the contrary, in Europe quite a number of high-power diesel-hydraulic locomotives are built, typically based on transmissions by Voith. Vossloh is well-known supplier. Voith recently entered the field of locomotive production themselves and now produces a 3500KW diesel-hydraulic locomotive: see www://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voith_Maxima —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.229.35 (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

electro-diesel or "bi-mod"
the electro-diesel section could be enhanced by referring to the "bi-mod" multiple units now running in France, where the drive is always electric, but the electrity is taken from the overhead where available or produced by a diesel engine otherwise. Reference http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles/commuter-and-regional-trains/hybrid-multiple-units/agc?docID=0901260d80010382 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.229.35 (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC) what iss holding you back??? Wdl1961 (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

constant power removal
the inaccurate constant power   is removed. feel free to rewrite the sentence as long as it is more transparent.inmy opinion the rest of the controls  descriptions should be  reorganized by the type of locomotive and the years of production in separate subsections and articles '.

i am a diesel mechanic and electrical engineer, therefore  not really  the right person to attack such  large task. i feel however that electrical and physics and logic  laws should not be violated.

Wdl1961 (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

rpm or torque must change
quote ==== the load on the engine changes, its rotational speed will also tend to change. This is detected by the governor via a change in the engine speed feedback signal. The net effect is to adjust both the fuel rate and the load regulator position. Therefore, engine RPM and !!! torque !!! will remain relatively constant for any given throttle setting, regardless of actual road speed.==== unquote

load on the engine changes rpm or torque must change

Wdl1961 (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wd11961. How can the torque stay the same at constant RPM as the load changes?  (Torque and horsepower are directly proportional for a given RPM.) Inasmuch as nobody responded to his 2009 posting, I removed the mention of torque.Casey (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The key words were "relatively", and "for any given throttle setting" as slight changes do occur, triggering the governor to compensate with fuel rack and load regulator adjustments. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  10:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The language as reverted is incorrect from the laws of physics. HP = TN/5252 in English units and the two are firmly related for any given RPM. I agree it is important to introduce the concept (i.e., detecting slight changes in RPM) by which the governor does its thing, and also to explain how the Load Regulator fits into the overall scheme, especially in a full-power situation.  However, "Relatively" is a vague term in an otherwise precise paragraph. Wuhwuzdat, please have a go at revising the wording to be absolutely correct technically while still retaining the flavor of the original language.  Thanks. Casey (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the control system is to maintain a relatively constant load on, & hence power output from, engine. See File:3000hp curve ver2.jpg. Note that the product of Volts & Amps, i.e. power, remains constant. Bottom of curve would represent low road speeds, top of curve is high road speeds --Suckindiesel (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC).


 * Ok, guys, I tried again to state that power remains constant if RPM and torque do. Also think "so that" is a better connector than "therefore" in describing what happens as a result of what. Casey (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

tags
for editors placing tags pls be specific about the complaints you have about specific facts in  the article if you can

maybe reading the material and refs and related wiki materisl will prhaps mke it claerer.

also the tag is somewaht inslting to the many experts who already red the matter without major issues

Wdl1961 (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

tags
Please specify the problems you have with the article like in the puppet  article above.

If you do no understand anything about the subject read about it.

If it is in the wiki article show the particular item or if you know something nobody else know or noticed put it there or in the talk page.

Realize that all the thousands  of experts and other people had  no problems with the article (or fixed it) and they may get the  impression they are ignorant or stupid which is rather insulting and not helpful to wiki reputation.

If you have problems i can help you with feel free to call me on skype "delang5"

the problem is that editing commas  ,porno   and spaces does not  make an expert  in anything else.

the problem apears mostly in english wiki and not in any other language.

Wdl1961 (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Advantages

 * Regenerative braking.
 * No gearshifting
 * No backlash and breaking of couplings during shifting.
 * Constant availability of maximum diesel generator power.
 * Easy addition of multiple power units.
 * Less maintenance with modern ac generators and motors without commutators.

Disadvantages

 * More weight
 * Less efficient in fuel use.
 * Needs high tech electronics with use of ac generators and motors.

??

Wdl1961 (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Many of them are questionable, and all are without references. For instance, less efficient than what exactly? And I don't recall high-tech electronics in the British Rail Class 30; or many other era diesels. Frankly it is cobbled together and next to none of them are entirely true or without a level of questionability. I'd say to delete it, it is fan-cruft, and not factual. Perhaps it would make sense if it was properly elaborated upon, but it relies upon vaguities, making it almost pointless. "More weight" than what exactly? You can assume the obvious, but you shouldn't need to assume, this is supposed to inform, not rely on the reader making assumptions upon the generalisations and unreferenced guesswork featuring. Kyteto (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Less efficient in fuel use.
 * try A <  not A
 * A = title "electric drive" efficiency. etc.etc.

Wdl1961 (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the list because it 1) wasn't germane to the article (everything has advantages and disadvantages); 2) some of the listed items were just plain wrong; 3) others were just plain ridiculous.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am curious to learn what is ridiculous etc.Wdl1961 (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Lights
I've added a section on lights because the Headlamp article is purely about road-vehicle headlamps. Please expand it if you can and correct it if necessary. I got the information on ditch lights from the Canadian National Railway article. Biscuittin (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Diesel-steam
I don't think an oil-fired steam loco counts as a diesel, even if it burns diesel oil. Biscuittin (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Delicate speed adjustments
The article doesn't seem to mention (and I don't know) how the driver adjusts train speed to an exact desired value when there are only, say, 8 throttle notches available.--Casey (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * is there a need to? - train driving is a skilled activity, balancing train weight, handling characteristics, grade, length, braking capacity as well as power - there is a whole heap of issue to discuss! Sulzer55 (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Updated some refs
Added refs to Deane and the first locomotive.

this article is very biased towards Yank locomotives, and misses much of the work done by the poms and Europeans - is this a deliberate or "no-ones interested" issue? Sulzer55 (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A very good question. I've always thought that the British efforts were particularly dire until the late 1950s / early 1960s, and were generally 5 to 10 years behind the Americans (for Diesel-electric) and Germans (Diesel-hydraulic).  Apart from perhaps the Deltics, I don't think we produced anything noteworthy before the .  The German work seems fairly well represented, although some is subsumed in the "American developments" section.
 * But, if you think the article needs correcting, you can either do so yourself, or add a globalize template to the top (or relevant section(s)) with a proper discuss parameter (to a new section below). Tim PF (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)