Talk:Gas turbine locomotive/Archive 1

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.

This needs to be split up!

The UP fleet holds little historical interest: it was not the first, fastest, longest serving or just about anything else. Yet it makes up the vast majority of the article. Unless anyone has a good counterargument, I propose splitting it out into an article as the "UP50". Maury 20:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It was the only turbine fleet used for mainline freight and saw some of the heaviest use. Information on them is also more readily available than on the other locomotives. The fact that the fleet didn't hold those records is not of serious consequence. Hellbus 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You missed my point completely. This article is about gas-tubrine trains, NOT about the UP gas-turbine powered trains. The content needs to be moved to an article on UP gas-turbine powered trains, and removed from here. Maury 23:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't miss the point; I'm just not convinced of it at this point. When there is more information on GTELs other than the ones UP used, then I could certainly see the need to split off the UP section. I wouldn't use UP50 as the title, however. Hellbus 23:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The comment about the APT switching to electric power because Leyland stopped production of the APT-E's turbines isn't exactly correct although it has some basis.

The Leyland turbine was used because it was available at the time, the competing configuration of one R-R Dart engine in each power car having been ruled out on expense grounds. Early on in the APT programme it was evident that 10 or more turbines per power car would not be suitable for a production train, and the early 70s fuel crisis put the nail in the turbine's coffin once and for all. Leyland had already abandoned development of the turbine by then, and the APT was the only application to use it, apart from a handful of prototype turbine trucks, maybe only one. Regards, Kit Spackman (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to split page

Many of the "locomotives" listed in this article are not "gas turbine electric", such as the French RTG, Amtrak's Turboliner, and the United Aircraft "Turbotrain", all of which were gas turbine-hydraulicWuhwuzdat (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In order to remove "Gas turbine-hydraulic" examples from this article, and not have the "hydraulic" page end up as a stub, I have made 2 proposed articles as examples: I suggest altering the Gas turbine-electric locomotive article as shown here, Gas turbine-electric locomotive/Gas turbine-electric locomotive, with all "hydraulic" examples removed and creating a new article, Gas turbine-electric locomotive/Gas turbine train with all the gas turbine-electric, and gas turbine-hydraulic passenger trains. If no one objects within the next 10 days, I will make the changes. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Those examples could be moved to the gas turbine locomotive article. Hellbus (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they could if they were Locomotives, but in this case, all the hydraulic examples were not true locomotives, but rather passenger train Power cars, and as such I don't think they fall under either Gas turbine, or Gas turbine-electric, locomotive categories. I did propose leaving any examples that had electric transmissions here, IE, the Jet Train, and the APT-E on this page.Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also prefer to just remove the "-electric" from the title of this article. There ist too much overlap between locomotives using hydraulic or electric transmission. If there is "too much" information on a specific type (e.g. the UP turbines), create a special article for that type. --Kabelleger (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The UP turbines already have their own article. Hellbus (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Gas turbine locomotive article already exists, a simple page rename would not work, and for the reasons I outlined above, I dont think the Power cars I chose to remove from this article should be categorized as locomotives. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the relative rarity of turbine locomotives and power cars, I don't see a problem listing both in the article, provided that power cars are described as such in their sections. Hellbus (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, do we at least agree that SOMETHING needs to be done here? As it currently stands, this article is misinforming all who read it that some (the examples I have cited above) of these power cars, were equipped with electric transmissions, and that they were usable as seperate locomotives, when in fact, they were used only as parts of dedicated trainsets, and had hydraulic transmissions. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be split up (...yes...again...sigh...)

It would seem that the time has come for yet another section of this article to "leave the nest". I am refering to the section on the Russian locomotives, which seems to be overwhelming the rest of the article with a mass of techo-babble, and obscure details.

I would propose splitting this section off as its own article, and reducing its presence here to a simple 1 or 2 sentence description for each locomotive (with appropriate wikilinks, of course).

Similarly, the Swiss section is getting a bit techno-babblish, and some of those details may need to migrate to the proper article (SBB-CFF-FFS Am 4/6 1101) as well. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Before we consider giving the Russian locomotives their own article, we need to see if the information added by the multiple IP's (pretty sure they're all the same person) added can be verified. Hellbus (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Regardless, this article seems to be drowning in the badly worded, technical details of a few, apparently experimental, locomotives. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For the time being, we could probably trim down the descriptions of the locomotives. It's not really necessary to note how much fuel they carry, for example. The locomotive type, dates of service, power output and current disposition (retired, testing, in service, etc.) are probably enough. Hellbus (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Something like this? Some of the desired details do not exist in the existing article. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a good start. I've made some adjustments; let me know what you think. Hellbus (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A definite improvement, thank you. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've condensed it a bit more, in particular combining the GEM-10 and TGEM-10 sections, since the latter appears to be a derivative of the former. Thoughts? Hellbus (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good enough to put online, right now. Barring any objections, I'd say to just do it! Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gas turbine-electric 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081123074134/http://www.railpower.com/2support/locomotives.htm to http://www.railpower.com/2support/locomotives.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)