Talk:Pantograph (transport)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Pantograph (rail))
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains / Streetcars / Locomotives (Rated C-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
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.

Clarify one-arm, two arm vs. full panto, half panto[edit]

At the beginning of the article, a distinction is made between a full diamond pantograph, and the "half-panto". Is this the same distinction involving the one-arm and two-arm pantographs later in the article? If this confuses me, it will confuse the average reader. Tmangray 00:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's to differentiate between diamond pantographs, and two half-pantographs joined together. There is a slight difference in the design - the latter could be said to be an evolution of the former. The terminology used in this article is a little confusing, however. Speaking of pantographs, why is a single arm one less suited to going in reverse? The mechanism must be capable of handling both directions equally, otherwise rollingstock such as the TGV would have their pantographs aligned to the direction of travel, which they don't. Robbie aka Zoqaeski 12:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Robbie aka Zoqaeski and think the single arm mechanism does handle both directions equally because for example, if the locomotive is moving from left to right, the Swiss SBB Re 460 has pantograph _>__._ and the Austrian ÖBB Taurus has pantograph _<___._ or for double heading _<__._+_.__>_ not _<__._+_<__._. Mu2 15:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

NY Subway third rail[edit]

Doesn't New York Subway use third rail? Oldie 20:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes. There is the Metro North which is operated by the MTA as well, but that's distinctively seperate from the subway. I'm just about to add that to the list and completely remove NYCTA. I live in New York. I ride the subways. They definetely are third rail.

--24.44.82.244 01:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey that was funny. I wasn't logged in. Anyway, that last comment was me. --Engleman 02:00, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

List of metro systems using pantographs[edit]

I have removed a few items which are clearly not metros from the 'List of metro systems using pantographs'; the point of the list is not to list every railway with pantographs in the world, but to point out metros using pantographs, as they are relatively unusual.

There are a few left in the list that seem borderline between metros and either commuter railways or trams, but I've left them for the time being. David Arthur 17:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I have removed several items from this list which are clearly not metros. Street-running trams (including most, though not all, systems calling themselves 'light rail') and main-line trains are valuable forms of transport, but the fact is that it is quite normal for them to use pantographs. This list exists specifically because, despite its growing length, it remains unusual for metros to use anything other than third-rail power. David Arthur 22:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The list of metros appeared mostly sorted except for a few; I fixed the few that were unsorted in the list. Cfallin 07:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete section entitled "List of metro systems using pantographs"[edit]

This entire list is pointless. I vote for removing it. One might as well have a "list of metro systems using wheels". jmd 01:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That kind of technical detail can be mentioned on those articles; no need to collect it here. --CComMack 16:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree to the deletion; many people seem not to understand the point that for metros to use pantographs is unusual, and add tramways or main-line railways, for which it is nothing out of the ordinary. David Arthur 16:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the section: List of metro systems using pantographs

It is informative. Waterspaces (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As it is now, the article is informative. At the time of this discussion (which is more than three years old), there was an uninformative and mislabelled section listing every pantograph-using railway that any editor cared about. David Arthur (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


Technical Details[edit]

I have removed "expensive and" from this paragraph as it is at best debatable:

"Pantographs with overhead wires are now the dominant form of current collection for modern electric trains because, although more expensive and fragile than a third-rail system, they allow the use of higher voltages."


I think that is justified by this Rail Safety and Standards Board report: http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/pdf/reports/research/T950_rpt_final.pdf

Page 3 states that 25kV AC overhead has lower capital and operating costs. Pages 70 and 72 state that it makes economic sense (at least in one case) to convert 3rd rail to overhead. Chris.Bristol (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Stationary pantograph[edit]

An electric bus charging station has been added at the [[Angrignon metro station (Montreal Metro)]]. Watch that talk page and its article because in due time someone will add the details. The installation incorporates a stationary pantograph. Peter Horn User talk 18:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)