Talk:Dieselisation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

Timeline by nation[edit]

Since the lists in the "Timeline by nation" section are time lines, wouldn't it be better to show the information chronologically instead of alphabetically? Also, would a table format be better than a list (perhaps separate columns for railroad name, first new diesel, last new steam, and dieselisation completed)? — Mmathu (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the dates may benefit from some revising. For example, the date regarding the dieselisation of the Denver and Rio Grande Western says nothing of the standard guage portion of the line, which occured in 1953, and does not mention the fact that it was the San Juan extension (line from Durango to Chama via Alamosa and Antanito) that was largely abondoned in 1968; the Silverton branch from Durango to Silverton was sold to private interests in 1981 and has always been steam powered. Also, the Northern Pacific was effectively all-diesel by 1958 and the reserve steam pool was retired in 1963, similar again with the Union Pacific, who opporated several revenue runs of steam during peak traffic season in 1960, and retired their reserve steam pool in 1965. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.35.241.214 (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute[edit]

Quote:

In contrast to dieselisation, electrification is not perceived as generally desirable in many circumstances in the industry, because it only sometimes produces savings due to the high initial capital cost of the process.

I dispute the accuracy of this. Electric railways are very common in Europe. The UK is unusual in relying so heavily on diesels. Biscuittin (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The initial cost is still high. The difference is that Europe has a higher traffic density than most other parts of the world, and thus more extensive electrification is worthwhile. Maybe that quote is regionally biased. SpaceCaptain (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Have suggested a different wording, which also tries to suggest that the actual cash cost may not be the only relevant factor in a discussion of the desirability of diesel v. electric (a perspective commoner in Europe than the US, I suspect). The density argument is not necessarily relevant -- eg, electric propulsion is the only serious option available for very high speed trains (world diesel speed record is held by the UK's HST, at just under 150mph; French TGVs travel at a usual maximum of 186mph, and higher speeds are planned -- which would be impractical with current diesel technology). So if you want a very high speed network, electrification is very "desirable" indeed! This applies to countries with relatively less dense populations -- eg, Spain has a far higher electrified route mileage than the the much denser UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.228.6 (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the quote is very accurate on the continent of North America. It might go over better if that is stated along with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.150.224.3 (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

NZ[edit]

Weren't 4-8-4s in use until 1972 in New Zealand? SpaceCaptain (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Image[edit]

Maybe someone should find a more appropriate free image. I'm thinking a shot of a diesel and steam locomotive together - but in whatever country's real transition era, not with a preserved steamer. SpaceCaptain (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking for a few years, but not found one yet. Edward (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Rail Transport section needs attention[edit]

I've just applied some minor typing corrections in the Rail Transport section and it strikes me that it would benefit from a re-write (that is, all the text preceding the timelines, which I didn't look at). Some of the wording is rather awkward, or else in the wrong sections, and it is apparent that the text has evolved over a period through the contributions of multiple editors. (I know this is in the nature of a Wiki, but articles benefit from having a consistent 'voice'.)

I know I run the risk of attracting a {{sofixit}}, but I do not feel I have the appropriate knowledge to correct the text. Perhaps someone more familiar with the topic can take this on, and provide some of the missing references too?

EdJogg (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dubious[edit]

Statement sounds global but may be specific to Europe?[edit]

The article currently says "a process which began in the 1930s and is now substantially complete in the US, UK and Latin America. Elsewhere, electric traction has mostly taken the place of steam locomotives in the main lines and diesel-electric and diesel-hydraulic locomotives are used in less frequently used side lines." I added the "dubious - discuss" tag because I find it unlikely that this statement applies well to most areas of China, India, Africa, Russia, Brazil, or various other places, outside of certain metropolitan regions. I would guess that the average train on the high iron chugging across provinces in BRIC countries is more likely diesel-electric than electric. Can anyone speak to that hypothesis? I don't know for sure, but I think the statement probably only applies to Europe and certain spots elsewhere. Discuss? — ¾-10 16:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


I am happy to answer your question! I was the author of the sentence. Contrary to your belief, the official statistics of UIC (International Union of Railways) tell otherwise.

In the BRIC countries, India hauls 80% of freight and 85% of passenger traffic with electric locomotives (as of 2006 already). In Russia, electrification of main lines became a mainstream as early as in 1950. The Trans-Siberian Railway (9259 km) has been partly electrified since 1929 and entirely electric hauled since 2002. The total length of electrified railways is 43 165 km versus 42 116 km unelectrified, and growing. In China, a staggering electrification and high-speed rail program is underway. Already (as of 2009) 30 243 km of railways are electrified versus 35 248 km unelectrified. The length of electrified line grows really fast every year. Only Brasil doesn't have any meaningful amount of electrified lines, but I already mentioned in my former edit that Latin America is dieselized, didn't I?

As for other parts of the world, The rail system of Japan consists of the following (as of 2005):

20,264 km (12,591 mi) of 1,067 mm (42.0 in) Cape gauge, of which 13,280 kilometres (8,250 mi) is electrified;

3,204 km (1,991 mi) of 1,435 mm (56.5 in) standard gauge, all electrified;

117 km (73 mi) of 1,372 mm (54.0 in) Scotch gauge, all electrified;

11 km (6.8 mi) of 762 mm (30.0 in) narrow gauge, all electrified.

Further examples:

Europe - we agree already - is mostly electrified,

South Korea has 57% of rail lines electrified,

Malaysia has 49%,

Kazakhstan has 28%,

South Africa has 52%,

Maroc has 59%

and so on.

Please consider also that the lines electrified are always the most used, so the proportion of traffic is much higher than the proportion of rail length.

Even in the UK, that I put in the dieselised category, electrification is nowadays going on rapidly mostly due to new high-speed rail lines. So it seems that America is the primary place in the railway world that is not willing to reap the benefits of electrification! However, let's not discuss the possible reasons here, we might just end up in an useless argument on political views :) 88.114.220.99 (talk) 11:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Because of the facts shown above, I felt justified to remove the "dubious" tag.

Soviet Union[edit]

This was solved after the adoption of an American marine diesel from the Liberty class freight ship, an unusual 10 cylinder 2000 hp design with opposed pistons. After a minor redesign in the USSR, the engine was essentially acceptable for rail use, and was employed in (circa 1950) the TE3 (ТЭ3 - "teplovoz electricheski 3" - diesel engine with electric transmission version 3) locomotive - 4000 hp in 2 sections. The power of the TE3 was equivalent to that of the largest steam engines at the time and given all of the other numerous advantages of the diesel engine, it was decided to abandon steam locomotives completely. All types of steam locomotives in the USSR stopped production in 1956

As far as I am aware, Liberty ships all used triple-expansion steam engines.PapaBear1965 (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Liberty Ships, Tankers and LSTs used a variety of power plants including diesels. The Opposed Piston diesel came into vogue during the war with the German Jumo, Uk Deltic, and US []Fairbanks Morse]] opposed. It only stands to reason that the Russians would follow as they did by outright copying of western products. [ A bomb, DC 3, Cat tractor, Packard, B 29 etc etc] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.169 (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The references listed on the Liberty ship page all refer to triple-expansion steam propulsion. The type-2 LSTs, and quite a few tankers, used diesels; so too, did some units of the Victory ship, designed to replace the Liberty hulls. Whatever large diesel design the USSR used, it came off something other than a Liberty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.60.75 (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Citations and sources are needed[edit]

Please be sure that all additions to the Dieselisation article are verifiable. Any new items added to the article should have inline citations for each claim made.

As a courtesy to editors who may have added unsourced claims previously, before Wikipedia citation policy is what it is today, many of the existing unsourced claims have been tagged {{citation needed}} to allow some time for sources to be added. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)