Jump to content

Talk:Alstom Prima diesel locomotives

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disputed

[edit]

What part of this articles accuracy is disputed? Carrolljon (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

[edit]

I've tagged this article as "disputed". The reason is here: This article had been nominated for a DYK and questions were raised over its referencing. The author of this work is yet to provide a satisfactory explanation for the same. I insist that a thorough verification of this article and its sources be performed. Specifically, I request that the reliability of the sources be checked. Thanks-RavichandarMy coffee shop 14:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what part do you think is wrong?Carrolljon (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
which sources - the Internation Railway Gazette perhaps, or the manufactures (see Vossloh, Alstom) own publications.
Others are railcolor.net and railfaneurope.net which I can assure you are reliable.
Please do not harrass me. Thank you.
I'm removing your tag.Carrolljon (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harassing you??? Of course, I am not! I messaged you asking you to reply to the questions raised in the DYK-nom page and you responded by attacking me. See here. If at all the sources are legitimate and reliable, then you may very well respond appropriately in the DYK-nom page. Why is it that you did not? I surely suspect something fishy here.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 15:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYKI, I am not the one raising this issue. User:Gatoclass was the one who pointed it out. -RavichandarMy coffee shop 15:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said you removed the DYK nomination so how can I reply there - there is nothing in this article to warrant the tag you put on it.Carrolljon (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice Joke! I removed the nom only after you indicated your unwillingness to reply by posting this message.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 18:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you remember I posted this first http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ravichandar84&oldid=266952900 which you have deleted along with the DYK nomination - it's here:

future can you not waste my time asking me to chase up problems you have created - you nominated the article - so I would expect that you be able to sort out simple problems regarding the nomination.Carrolljon (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a joke - if I don't know what is wrong with the article I can't attempt to solve the problem, and you who are adding the 'factual accuracy' tag do not seem to know what the problem is, nor do you seem to have bothered to find out. If you don't actually do any work with respect to this problem why should anyone take any notice of you?Carrolljon (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have an issue with the article don't add the tag, if you think the other person has an issue I suggest you inform them and leave it to them to bring up any problems.Carrolljon (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not whether it is me or him. Regardless of who added the tag, it is clear that someone has an issue, right-RavichandarMy coffee shop 18:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a message on User:Gatoclass talk page - to ask if they have any issues.

Do you have any problems with the article?Carrolljon (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone comes forward to say what is wrong with the article then there is no need for the tag - I can see no problem with the article. You have not given any real reason for the tag. If you can provide a good reason for it - then put the tag back on. Carrolljon (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Third Opinion. Unless a specific objection is made on this talk page, or by a permanent link (a link to WP:DYK is not nearly specific enough), then I see no reason this article should be tagged. Furthermore, {{disputed}} is for factual disputes; if you're not confident about the sources, use {{refimprove}} and point out which references are questionable or which statements are not supported by a reliable source. Perhaps providing a link to the proper DYK discussion may provide some insight. (EhJJ)TALK 22:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The disputes have been pointed out here. As I've indicated in your talk page, I would like to have a neutral, unbiased individual make a thorough reference check, especially for reliability. I put this tag on the article page as I could find nothing else.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 03:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for a third opinion and I left a message on the relevent page so that one could be got -see above.
Is there a reason why you can't check the article yourself if you feel so strongly about it.
I think you are doing this to harass me because I told you to do your own work - somethig you still seem unwilling to do. I've made my views clear - sorry if that has offended you - but there is a simple way to prove me wrong. Hope that helps you.Carrolljon (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YOU had written the article. I nominated the article for a DYK; YOU verified the hook and said it was all right. And now, when someone raises a question, you shout at me in talkpage (telling me to mind my own business) as if I had erred in nominating it. I'm getting suspicious here. I am not sure if I am capable of assessing it as I do not know much about these locomotives. But I feel that someone who is knowledgeable enough should. I do feel let down here. There are probably issues with the article and I shouldn't have nominated it. Else why should you react in such a way.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 13:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't challenge the validity of the references. I simply stated that I couldn't verify the hook statements from the cited reference, that's all. Where did you get the information from that the locomotives "have been exported to Iran, Syria and Sri Lanka?" That's what you need to clarify. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the clarifications. Of course you can see here. The claim is present in the fourth paragraph.

Also produced in the 1990s were Prima diesels countries outside Europe—the DE32C was produced for Syria and Sri Lanka and a DE43C model was exported to Iran (AD43C[14])

I am not sure about the references and their reliability, though.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 14:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant statements in PL42AC section

[edit]

The locomotive does not run in Europe, so it's not relevant what would be "considered" high axle weight there. Nor is having a single cab "unusual". Heavier passenger locomotives than the PL42AC (even with higher axle weights) have operated and still operate in the United States, at higher speeds than the PL42AC (a commuter railway locomotive) currently runs at (the maximum speed may be certified at 160 km/h, but the average speeds of New Jersey Transit's trains rarely exceed 48 km/h).

71.241.87.199 (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "unusual in its class.
(new sections go at the bottom)FengRail (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also instead of adding tags why don't you just correct it yourself.FengRail (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you supply a reference for the average speed.

Removal

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alstom_Prima_diesel_locomotives&action=historysubmit&diff=327735733&oldid=327735108

I think this is an error - Prima II design postdates this locomotive.Shortfatlad (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Removal

[edit]


Already there is following issue: Prima (locomotive) includes the same information as this: Alstom Prima diesel locomotives. So I think this issue: Prima (locomotive) should be merged and removed.
McKaby (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...or possibly the other way around; Prima (locomotive) is four years older. —Sladen (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove infobox

[edit]

it duplicates the info in the main articles, (I can create main articles for those which don't have one), and is pretty big (and incomplete, so willl get bigger). The proposal is to remove the box and have this article more like DB V 160 family (which is much better) Imgaril (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative model is the TRAXX article, which has multiple infoboxen. I'd agree that it would be better for each different locomotive model to have its own infobox, but for some, it may be better to leave them in their own section here, rather than have their own stubby article (see also EMD Series 66). Those sections can always be split off into their own articles later on if they would not be so stubby.
As for the existing global infobox, it could be retained as a summary, so that, for instance, Tractive effort would just be given as 144–588 kN (32,000–132,000 lbf), etc.. Tim PF (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the articles are stubby, eventually there's no reason why they shouldn't be as long as any other locomotive article in the future though, once someone gets their hands on the info. I'd avoid separate infoboxes in a single article because it gets messy.
What about a summary table in this article , plus separate stubs ?Imgaril (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that, as you should have been able to infer from my previous comment.
We appear to have almost no information about the DE32C, which would probably yield the stubbiest article (and perhaps might just stay here).
Do you know if the AD32C another name for the M9? If so, it should be clarified. Tim PF (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AD33C is currently equated with a Syrian locomotive, if you want to research it I think it is also know as the "DE 32 C AC" or "AD 33 C" ,LDE 3200 it might be AD33C eg [1] [2] [3] , the Syrian class appears to be "LDE 3200" [4] which may be simply be a reference to the HP (don't know what 'LDE' means) - the actually locomtive numbers are separate (my research) - ie there is no LDE 3201 .. etc ..
AD 32 C appears to be the manufacturer type for the M9 , yes [5].
It may need extra checking for errors.Imgaril (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm fine with you to get on with it, I've got other things to do at the moment. I just had concerns that we didn't seem to have much info about the Syrian model, but it looks as if there's enough to go on so that it's not too stubby. The M9 looks like its the local name as is the Class 67. I guess that you'll find any other errors when you check the sources for the figures. Tim PF (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've found enough for the Israel articles, and the others except the Syrian ones, but there is a photograph of it, and a picture tells a thousand words.. Probably there's more info on it in arabic or whatever syrian language is - but I don't know how to find it.Imgaril (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruston engines

[edit]

Were the Ruston engines built by Ruston (engine builder) (if so, the links need updating) and were they built in Britain or France? Biscuittin (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are mentioned here http://www.enginemuseum.org/intoman.html - I assumed the engines were built in the UK, though I don't know if ruston had a French factory.Imgaril (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big error

[edit]

I think there may be a big error on this page - some of the locomotive may not be "prima" types at all. I am fairly sure that SNCF Class BB 75000 is, and possibly RENFE 333.3 and 333.4 , (also SNCF Class BB 27000 SNCF Class BB 37000 and China Railways HXD2 electrics) but the others surely aren't.

The only source I see is the very vague http://www.railcolor.net/index.php?nav=1405603&lang=1 which says Since the mid-90s, Alstom has been building main line diesel-electrics for customers all over the world. Machines are running in Syria, Iran, Sri Lanka, Israel, Spain, the U.S. and in the U.K. These are now known as PRIMA locomotives. , but this contradicts itself since it states the prima design was introduced after ~2001 .. I don't think this is reliable.

As such I've removed references to "Prima diesel locomotive" from a number of articles, except were it is certain, in some cases I've replaced with "alstom designed" or similar.

If the "prima" designation can be shown reliably then this can all be reversed - but it seems unlikely to me. Note - I accept that there is a close relation over time between the locomotives mentioned here - there is a development of design - but I don't think most of them can be called "prima diesel locomotives". It questions the viability of this page, but other than that - I don't think there should be any real negative effects.83.100.193.253 (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Iran locmotives (2005) are probably Prima type -[6] they look like the Chinese Prima types as well. Imgaril (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to http://www.avaf.es/ATV395254.pdf the RENFE Class 333 rebuilds used EMD electronics - but a cab based on alstoms prima - (the rest I assume is NOHAB/ EMD) (That seems to be accurate too) Imgaril (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unknown for train manufacturers to apply family branding retrospectively - Bombardier's Croydon trams became Flexities after they had entered service. This is speculation, but could it be that that after launching the Prima brand name Alstom considered existing locos to be Primas as well? Wheeltapper (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's a possibility but I can't find any evidence of it - I found a few erratic (not really reliable) source using prima with some locos but that's about it. Case in point are the Israel railways locos - just couldn't find anything calling them prima's, and I'm sure "JT42CW" is an EMD classification.
However the internet archive shows that the syrian locos are "prima" too http://web.archive.org/web/20060325070236/http://www.transport.alstom.com/home/Products_and_Services/RAIL_VEHICLES/Freight_trains/Locomotives/diesel_loco/7613.EN.php?languageId=EN&dir=/home/Products_and_Services/RAIL_VEHICLES/Freight_trains/Locomotives/diesel_loco/ - but it's really fiddly to use. I'm hoping someone else will know the answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imgaril (talk • contribs) 22:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh %$^$&*&
http://www.highbeam.com/Search?FilterByPublicationID=5194&FilterByPublicationName=Railway+Age&searchTerm=prima
and http://informationandnews.info/eurostar/press/Alstom-Prima-Diesel-Locomotives.html
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-65805871.html
http://www.highbeam.com/Search?FilterByPublicationID=5194&FilterByPublicationName=Railway+Age&searchTerm=prima
Even the Israel locos are Primas - I'll fix this tomorrow, at least it's a fact now..Imgaril (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alstom Prima diesel locomotives. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • 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) 01:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alstom Prima diesel locomotives. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • 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) 21:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alstom_Prima_diesel_locomotives&oldid=1198495134"