Talk:TRAXX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains / Locomotives (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
P train.svg
Trains Portal
DYK May 22, 2009
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
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

(German-centric, Italian lineage)[edit]

This page is quite german-centric...

From the group were derived two italian locomotives (E.464 and E.412, respectively TRAXX 160 DCP and TRAXX 112E) and a third group for Poland, EU43 (TRAXX112E), 8 vehicles that were never acquired by PKP and then sold to Rail Traction Company.

The project in its initial phase involved Ferrovie dello Stato, not only DB, since an agreement was signed to provide a new group (the 464) to replace the old E.646 regional locomotives. A prototype of the E.454 group, developed for the purpose by FS itself but inadequate because too powerful and expensive, was offered in 1994 by FS to the ADTranz Consortium to serve as base for the TRAXX family.

Following this, E464 was one of the first groups delivered, back in 1996. It is the biggest group derived by the TRAXX family with over 580 locomotives running up to now. (look at http://www.leferrovie.net/loco/e464.php it you need a source) --Jollyroger 07:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, lenght, weight and powers vary considerably among the group, ranging from 15.750 mm and 19.400 mm for the body lenght, 70 to 90 tons for weight and 3500-5600 kW for power. --Jollyroger 08:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you Jollyroger.Furthermore this page should contain 2 sections : one for the electric versions and one for the diesel variants which were introduced last year.I will try do to do this, but any commens are welcome ! --Btrs 20:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the E464 was made a member of the TRAXX family recto-actively when the TRAXX brand name was introduced in 2003, but this idiocy was dropped in 2007. I now put this into the article with sources. Also, the E464 wasn't delivered in 1996, it was only ordered back then; first delivery was in 1999. --Rontombontom (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I further note that not much (if anything) of the E454 survived in the E412 and E464 and nothing in the actual TRAXXes (post-2007 designation). The E454 had two-phase fixed frequency choppers and DC motors, the E412 and E464 has GTO-based converters and AC motors. The drives and gear ratios are different, too. The E454 had 2800 mm wheelbase bogies, the E412 and E464 have ones with the same 2650 mm wheelbase as the ABB Flexicoil bogie tested in the DB 120 004 and resulting in the DB Class 101 bogie (the TRAXX freight versions have the same wheelbase but a different bogie frame). The carbodies are different, too, and not just in length. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

TRAXX#The_electric_versions[edit]

A few possible errors here - will attempt to mend myself if I can. In the meantime I have left 'tags' on the problem bits.Carrolljon (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

German centric - also useless[edit]

The article is too DB centric.

There is no mention of 'AC 140' / '140AC' locomotives which is bombardier's own description.

Looking for SBB Re 482 turns up nothing.

It needs redoing.FengRail (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WORK IN PROGRESS[edit]

Currently redoing the article - to include references + rewriteFengRail (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Re-organising by voltage type - followed by the variant for diesel and/or electric use, sub organised by date. Work still in progress - sections will be expanded.FengRail (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Still working on it, DB Class 145 / 146 should have separate articles...(maybe?)((FengRail (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC) DBAG Class 145 and 146 split from article. FengRail (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That's me done.. Please finish it off.FengRail (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


The mentioned TRAXX F160 DC are the FS Class E405, former PKP class EU11 bought by Trenitalia Cargo from Bombardier after the resigning of the contract by PKP in 2003, they were built in Wroclaw by Ad-Tranz Pafawag between 1998 and 2002. --Mattia90rn (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

common platform (Comments moved from article)[edit]

According to Giancarlo Piro from UIC (UIC user producer interaction program, johanesburg 2000) the Greek railway had made an order to Bombardier (ADtranz) some diesel electric locomotives (bo-bo, 80 t.,2100kw,200 km/h) for being used in line between athens-thessaloniki which is not yet electrified and after electrification it was considered for these locomotives to be converted to electric locomotives (5000 kw).these to type locomotives have about 80% common parts as well as:

car body, cabs, bogies, traction motors, inverters, compressor, braking sys .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghorbanalibeik (talkcontribs)

Comments above moved from article to talk page. WuhWuzDat 17:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Electrical components[edit]

Removed addition that they also are made in Trapaga [1] - no idea if this is true or not, but only ref I have doesn't mention it. ???

Shortfatlad (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

ok found it [2] but please add references for stuff added.Shortfatlad (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Failure to observe copyright etiquette by Continental Modeller[edit]

The magazine "Continental Modeller" (sister magazine of Railway Modeller) published an article in the June 2010 edition : P.374 by 'Ron Smith'

This article copied much information from the article, and did not include the relevant licensing terms, additionally the publication claims copyright on its contents.

I have sent a letter to peco publications explaining the situation. It is based upon Wikipedia:Standard_license_violation_letter#If_you_are_a_significant_contributor_to_the_text and I have reproduced it here:

Dear Continental Modeller:

I am pleased to see that your publication (June 2010 TRAXX locomotive article), uses content from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org), the free encyclopedia. This is the sort of reuse that those who contribute to Wikipedia, as I do, wish to promote.

However, you must follow the licensing terms which govern all Wikipedia text. Most of Wikipedia's content, including the text you are using, is dually licensed under the the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA 3.0) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). The text of these licenses, the relevant legally binding documents, can be found at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CCBYSA> and <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License>. Wikipedia does offer advice about how to comply with these licenses. This can be found in detail at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights>.

First, I note that you included a link back to the source Wikipedia article as is suggested at that page. However, additionally, you should also include a CC-BY-SA notice, a GFDL notice, or both. You could, for example, add the text "This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license", and provide a link to a copy of the CC-BY-SA. Text such as "This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia" is a good way to acknowledge the general source of the text.

I was a contributor to this article, and text that I wrote appears in your magazine - in parts copied verbatim. Since it appears without specifically attributing me (and the other authors), or linking to the text of the CC-BY-SA or GFDL under which I released my contributions, the existence of this article violates my copyright, as well as those of all other contributors.

for example the text has been copied from the wikipedia article:

"In the early 1990s the Deutsche Bahn sought replacements for its electric locomotive fleet - the universal locomotives DB Class 120 had been successful.."

"The TRAXX P160 AC is the passenger version of this class, with a correspondingly higher top speed of 160 km/h, with lower unsprung mass achieved through the use of hollow shaft final drive replacing the axle hung motor arrangement in the freight version. The bogies and drive unit are the same as used in the DBAG Class 146"

"In May 2004 Bombardier introduced an improved version of the TRAXX locomotive platform as demonstrator loco 185 561. The unit was fundamentally the same as the F140AC machines, with some minor improvements - cabins now had a crumple zone.."

"At the same time as the introduction of demonstrator loco 185 561 for the F140 AC2 class another new type was introduced: this was the locomotive SBB Re484 001; the first TRAXX unit that could operate under AC and DC electrified catenaries. As well as the 15/25kV AC supplies.."

"In 2005 Angel Trains cargo placed an order for 10 DC electric locomotives with Bombardier, the first machine E483 001 was produced in August 2006 at Bombardier's plant in Kassel.."

And many other examples. In addition the tables used in your article appear to have been copied verbatim.

Please add the required acknowledgments to your publication.

Thank you.

77.86.125.207 (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Major re-edit -- still more work needed[edit]

I found this article to be extremely shabbily written. Apart from formatting issues, what bugged me most was the description of the emergence of the type in the Development section. Bombardier may retouche Adtranz and AEG and ABB out of the history of TRAXX in its press releases, but Wikipedia shouldn't pretend that a brand name introduced in 2003 (by a company acquiring locomotive production in 2001!) started in 1999 or even earlier; and Octeon should be mentioned. I have now re-written this section, with sources, and attempted as minimal cleanup of the type descriptions. But most of the latter sections are unsourced, the infoboxes are full of numbers and units without space between them and other bad formatting, etc. Anyone feel up to it? --Rontombontom (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not me, as you've just insulted my previous work ;) Maybe you should start with a blank page :( Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't meant to insult your work or the work of any single editor... it was my impression, both from the article and the Talk page, that this is a typical work in progress Wikipedia article which is a massive subject, which was worked on by several editors, but none of them could 'complete' the work (not the least due to the on-going developments nature of the subject). There was even French punctuation with space in the lede (I take the result of an incomplete translation job). --Rontombontom (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
(ouch edit conflict - not really getting at you) (seriously though) Please do the mending if you can - the article has been through a couple of revisons, and has mostly improved everytime - maybe you'll be the one to get it to GA status. Good luck - we're counting on you :) Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

E464[edit]

The E464 came up in a discussion on my Talk page. As Sf5xeplus, for lack of sources in languages I speak, I don't know much about the technological background of this type, either. In particular, it would be nice if anyone can find sources on the precise technological connections to earlier ABB and Adtranz products, and what survived from it (if anything) in the DC and MS versions of TRAXX 2 locomotives. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This book http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Hdvr82d23mkC&vq=abb&source=gbs_navlinks_s (type traxx into the search box) - particularily references no. 254 and 255 might have some info. In particular no 254 - this book Baureihe 185 Weiterentwicklung einer bewährten Plattform . Authors Schreiber R, Papritz M - I haven't read it - but it seems likely that it would at least present the heritage of the electric systems in the TRAXX locomotives.
Also http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/dedicated-to-the-traction-motor.html and http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/synergies-drive-growth-in-traction-components-market.html (see about the Turgi factory) might be useful in starting off a research into the history as both articles namecheck some of the relavent factorys -which could be useful.
As for the history - if you can read or translate german see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB-Baureihe_120 and follow the history forward - in particular the book mentioned in the literature section of that article sounds very promising : Karl Gerhard Baur: Die Geschichte der Drehstromlokomotiven. Eisenbahn-Kurier Verlag, Freiburg 2005, ISBN 3-88255-146-1 (History of the three phase locomotives) , though it might be a non-technical picture book.
There are also the technical periodicals, and publications - but these seem to me mostly in german - and so need to be able to search using german search terms.Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't have the Baur book, though heard it recommended. Then again, German rail sources tend to become imprecise when it comes to non-German applications of even Germany-origin technology (that was particularly apparent when I checked sources for Eurotrain). But by now, I have a fairly complete picture: the Italian honorary TRAXXes used water-cooled GTOs developed by ABB's Swiss branch (later also used in the Iore and the SBB-CFF-FFS RABDe 500, by the way), but the multi-system TRAXXes introduced in the TRAXX 2 generation have completely new IGBT-based converters (with the 12X used as testbed). The new DC versions in the TRAXX 2E generation are derived from the MS versions in all their main features (converters, transformers, control system, motors, bogies, vehicle body, cabin) and thus break the Italian E412/E464 lineage. The one thing I couldn't check is whether Adtranz intended to use the Camilla converters as the default Octeon converter at some point or not, but maybe Pechristener knows more. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Traxx and Eurosprinter[edit]

(another possible topic for the article) A question I've been wondering if anyone can answer (in the article) is the relation between the german TRAXX and Eurosprinter models - is the "specification" similarity due to the design being fundamentally a DB specification, and is the external similarity also due to DB technical specifications - eg even the headlights are in the same place - apart from looking similar.? - and along those lines - the whole family of three phase german electrics have a similar body design - is there a "standard elok" - if so who makes the specification, and what is it etc (I haven't been able to answer these myself -though I am aware that there is a standard diesel shunter design - with versions produced by unrelated companies Gmeinder and MaK (??) ie What I'm asking is "is there some german railway standard that causes the any of the europsprinter and traxx similarity, or is it just a historical artifact etc" Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I just found this The front-edge 'blades' are gone; however, DB made the continuation of the sloped roof edge down the front a styling requirement for all its new purchases. (Possibly not unrelated: the then DB boss was a former AEG CEO. see http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2009/6/26/124622/537 - a better and more reliable source would be good though..Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
A very belated reply: the similarity of technical specifications has to do with the nature of the rail industry in much of Europe in most of the 20th century. Before the mergers of the nineties, there was no competition between producers of complete vehicles, and state railways micro-managed what they wanted. So, although the original DB Class 120 prototypes were built by Henschel and BBC (both of which would later go up in ABB), later DB involved AEG, Siemens and Krauss-Maffei in production, too, so they developed/acquired the same technology while working on (compatible) components for the same type. So indeed the general similarities of EuroSprinter and TRAXX (resp. Eco2000, Octeon) are due to the origins of all in the Class 120 and the aborted Class 121 programme. Then again, there are differences -- Siemens/Krauss-Maffei went the road of long wheelbase bogies while ABB and AEG went the opposite way, for example.
The external styling is another thing. The original EuroSprinter and ABB's Eco2000 concept had a styling more similar to that of the Class 120 while the respective first deliveries to DB (Class 152 resp. Class 101) look more like the Class 145, but I haven't found a source yet on when and how DB requested Siemens & ABB/Adtranz to change the design. Will have to flip through two years' worth of old magazines again... --Rontombontom (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I found short articles about or with references to the style designs of all three types, but nothing useful for the TRAXX article. For the Class 101, ABB presented DB with a selection of designs made by an external design studio, and DB's choice was also motivated by price: the Class 101 front is made of steel plates bent around a single axis only, nothing fancy like composite. There are no details about how the Class 145 design emerged, but it is obviously the 12X shape without the windflaps and the non-straight underframe (and, like the 101, without composites). Regarding the Class 152, the article only says that the design was modified in line with DB's recommendations. However, this on-line article (in German) again writes about DB's desire for steel plates bent around a single axis only and lack of composites, and confirms that this front structure was a requirement for all new DB locomotives. No link to the 12X, however. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Twins?
I was wondering about DB requiring a 'consistent corporate image' (at least I can't tell most german Eurosprinters and Traxxs apart easily from a distance) - perhaps this is more relavent to the Eurosprinter article - current Eurosprinters (excluding the Taurus's) look more like 12X, than the Eurosprinter prototype? As a comparison - the DB V 160 family all had a similar exterior design, which came from the Henschel built de:DB-Baureihe_V_320 (according to common sources) - despite being built by a variety of manufacturers - MaK/Krupp, Henschel, Krauss Maffei. In the Eurosprinter it might just be 'convergent evolution' rather than by design though.
DBAG Class 189
Convergent evolution by DB requirement, as per the Class 152 source above :-) Indeed driving trailers, EMUs and DMUs had those roof inclines down the nose, too. The easiest visual mark to distinguish the Class 152 and the DB-owned TRAXX is the bottom line of the underframe (straight for the TRAXX, with ends pulled down at the ends for the 152). The four-system EuroSprinter can be distinguished from both easily due to the ribbed sidewalls. BTW, I wonder what would happen if DB orders Vectrons: will they keep the new front (already introduced in the EuroSprinters for Portugal and Belgium, and the EuroRunners before that), or demand a new look. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes ("Durch die Deutsche Bahn wurde eine klare, übersichtliche und gut zu fertigende Form für alle Lokomotiven der laufenden Neubeschaffungen vorgegeben.") from your link, very interesting - I wonder if the specification is in the public domain.
As for vectrons - from the above it looks like they've have to stick it in a DB shaped box - though I guess that DB has placed all the electric locomotive orders it's likely to for a decade or so? (I haven't read anyway that the eurosprinter production has stopped yet, so they can still buy those or TRAXX..)Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
By the way re any new look in the next generation of DB locomotives : I found this link via railcolor [3] new Voith Gravitas for DB - no curves at all - even in 1 axis. Not sure that they will continue this pattern into new mainline locos though.Sf5xeplus (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't meant to include single-cab machines without front cabs.
This stuff is sadly rarely in the public domain. We are speaking of dated regulations, anyway. DB first abandoned it a decade ago already, when it bought Tauruses (DB Class 182) without changes so that it could run freight trains into Austria (the long bogie wheelbase and the axle-hung motors of the Class 152, a 'cost-saving' choice, was rather track-unfriendly especially in curves, and Austria didn't let the machines in). Also see Class 442 and Class 440 EMUs.
New demand for electric locos does appear for DB today: due to its international expansion and its competition for regional passenger service franchises. It recently ordered new TRAXXes for its Scandinavia traffic and for regional services (the latter is in the article), and rents other locos now and then. So maybe a DB Vectron is not that far away :-) --Rontombontom (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

water/ester cooling[edit]

2diffs It's clear that some swiss locomotives were ester cooled, and later traxx versions water cooled (actually water/glycol cooled see [www.bombardier.com/files/en/supporting.../TRAXX_MS_EMAS.pdf]).

However this document implies with near certainty that the early versions eg 185.1 were oil cooled http://www.bombardier.com/files/en/supporting_docs/EFS_Re484_en.pdf - this is all quite confusing - I haven't got the whole picture yet.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I also removed this "The 12X featured several innovations compared to the Class 120, including water-cooled inverters based on GTO thyristors" I'm assuming it was an unforced error in the recent edits, but if not please source - the reasons for it seeming wrong are that other sources suggest that water cooling wasn't introduced until later 2000s.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The 12X was definitely water-cooled. I have contemporary sources in print saying so, but here is a Google book in English I found quickly. Regarding the early class 185 and 145 types, that source claiming an oil coling for both "converter" and transformer is confusing. I tried to dig in my print sources, but so far I only found an article for the class 145 which says it has ester coolant; but nothing yet for the class 185. Will continue tomorrow. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Great. I'm not sure about the "oil cooled" claim for the 185.1 - even though it's a bombardier document - it may not have been done by a technical expert - It's possible this really refers to a switch from non-biodegradable additive ("oil") so something else in an actually water based coolant.
In the meantime, I found some sources, and everything points to ester cooling in the class 185.1 (which BTW is official but something of a misnomer, being used for numbers 001 through 200). I'll put them into the article later today. I note I also plan to put that Google book source into the article; but that's because it is in English and on-line, not because I trust it (there are a number of erroneous non-technical claims in the first paragraph).
The environmental impact study on the Bombardier site was indeed written by outsiders, they even write that they couldn't get data for every component while they toured the factories; so mixing up something is likely. Especially if you consider that they actually claim that oil was replaced by ester when comparing the DB Class 185.1 with the SBB Re484: the latter is a TRAXX 2, and definitely water-cooled. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting most confused about the company historys though -the book above mentions the "AEG Daimler Benz plant in Henningsdorf (1994)" - is this a typo or am I wrong - the info I've got is that the plant was only AEG until at least 1995, and after that it was part of ABB Daimler Benz - and there never was such a company structure known as "AEG Daimler Benz". (Yes I know AEG was acquired by Daimler Benz in 1985 - but it never got renamed?) ok was renamed [4] Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It was actually re-named multiple times over that short period (there was a merger with Westinghouse, the absorption of the LEW factory, Daimler-Benz re-structuring), and that's why I'm not sure what was the final official name when Adtranz formed (my contemporary sources kept using older names, and as I have shown below, Adtranz itself wasn't so precise on its own web page or in publications). --Rontombontom (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added that book reference to the AEG 12X article by the way - I think that technical info about the 12X may be more suited there than here.Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Forgot to note: I strived to put in those technical details that are ancestral to the TRAXX (alas, just the water-cooled GTO wasn't). I hope that in the current wording, this is much clearer (this is also why I omitted other details on the Eco2000/Class 101 design). --Rontombontom (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Biodegradable[edit]

In my (print) source for the class 101 (the originator of the 145 family and TRAXX 1 cooling system), it says (my emphasis):

Die BR 101 verfügt über eine äußerst kompakte Dreiphasen-Stromrichtereinheit, die ebenso wie die Transformatoren mit einem biologisch abbaubaren Polyol-Ester gekühlt wird. Mit ihm werden neben 400 Litern herkömmlicher Stromrichter-Kühlflüssigkeit auch zwei Tonnen des sonst benötigten Transformatoröls ersetzt.

I could add that as quote to the citation; for now I added the secondary citation. (By the way, do you speak German or should I also translate it?) I think the environmental advantage of water cooling over ester is that water itself is 'tolerated' by the environment instantly and what's in it is just an additive, while oily stuff is still sticky until it degrades. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

machine translation is good enough for simple things.. That's an older class but as things don't tend to go backwards I won't question that the stuff is still biodegradable on traxx..
I don't think they just pour it onto the ground when they want to get rid of it :) - but when they scrap (or repair) these things nowadays they have to have all organics disposed of . and a water based coolant will be cheaper to get rid off. (and less hassle from the german eqivalent of H&S executive too.)Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, for the managers who call the shots it's ultimately all about the money. However, transformer oil/liquid coolant can flow out during collisions. --Rontombontom (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

traxx 2e, e= evolution[edit]

diff - the suggested reference doesn't confirm this http://www.railcolor.net/index.php?nav=1405016&lang=1 - there is a box that says "Bombardier Traxx 2 evolution" - as far as I know that's just a title for the article page. I couldn't find any press release or anything on bombardier's website confirming this.Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's in the text too here or here; but if you want a Bombardier source, I can't give you one, nor for the generation names themselves (we now have a Knorr source for that in the article). Also, I note that the AEG/ABB Transportation merger was 50/50 and happened on 1 January 1996, and that I put the class 101 reference in there because some electronics come from there; but I'll have to dig up a more direct source than yours tomorrow. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
the merger - I'm just going what is written in the reference AEG archive site - which I assumed reliable - it's odd because it says merged into adtranz in 1995 (when adtranz created 1996?) - perhaps it actually came into effect legally on 1 jan 1996 when adtranz was created?
As for the 50:50 I guess you must mean that the "ABB-Henschel" / "AEG transportation" merger was 50:50 - ie a merger of the transportation divisions - whereas the AEG factory absorbed 1995/6 (ie LEW heningsdorf) is small compared to the entire AEG group..? ok forgot AEG was already part of Daimler Benz
The AEG history you linked is one assembled by a certain Gerd Flaig, former employee of one of the non-railway sectors of AEG, and published on his personal homepage; so little mistakes can be forgiven. As you deduced, the merger was announced and agreed in 1995, but legally valid from 1 January 1996; and so says ABB today, as well as ADtranz itself on its archived page. That ADtranz was a 50%-50% joint venture is written on ABB's history page as well as on the organigram in this archived ADtranz page. Sorry about the AEG/AEG Schienenfahrzeuge/Daimler Benz Transportation/etc. mess, but I'm not sure what was the official name at the time: the merging entities (the railway branches of ABB and Daimler-Benz, the latter being the railway branch within the Daimler-Benz-owned AEG portfolio) are differently named in ADtranz's own publications too; see for example the archived merger chart. (For all archived Adtranz pages, due to some silly redirect that sends to an archived version of Bombardier Transportation's page, I again advise to stop loading after the images appear.) I'm going to put the ABB link into the article later today. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced about "evolution" - I see that an "E" prefix has been used often - but I'm really not convinced that the evolution moniker is not just an invention of the railcolor.com website. The absense of anything on the bombardier website I could find really suggests to me that it's someones unofficial invention - if this is true it would be wrong to use it.Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I repeat that you can't find the TRAXX 2 and TRAXX 2E family designations themselves on the Bombardier site, though you can find it in component supplier Knorr's publication (and also on some purchaser's and model railroad producer's pages). The webpage is mostly about marketing, and the family names don't appear to be part of the marketing, more internal (in line with Bombardier revisionism). But, railcolor being the single non-wiki source I can find, and not error-free (water-cooled TRAXX 1), it's best to ask the site owners what's their source if there is one, I'll do so. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
For that matter, just checked, you can't find the definition of the TRAXX acronym on the Bombardier site, either... --Rontombontom (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes I noticed that too about the TRAXX acronym - I had to dig to find a reference to it.
Returning to the whole cooling thing - I'm fairly sure that all the references to "ester cooled" actually mean "water cooled with ester additive". or maybe not see [5] message on your talk page about this. Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I now added those other sources to the article, which also allowed for the inclusion of the class 101/ABB lineage (turns out it's just those damn ester-cooled parts that don't come from the 12X). I have also written to the railcolor guys. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The ester-oil confusion probably arises from treating ester as synthetic oil. In some of the German-language articles I combed through today, they talk about cooling system oil pumps and ester coolant in the same sentence. Regarding an ester-water mix, this article claims that DB uses it in place of oil in its version of the Siemens Taurus locos (the DBAG Class 182). --Rontombontom (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Platforms Octeon & Eco2000[edit]

There seems to be a big mix-up regarding the platforms Octeon and Eco2000. Eco2000 started with ABB Henschel. It's base is BR 101. Octeon was a platform starting with Adtranz. Parts of it was used in 12X, BR 145 and MTAB IORE. Probably the most consequent Octeon vehicle is the Spansich AVE S-102. I hardly recommend to separate the platform story from the predecessor locomotive story to avoid confusion. --Pechristener (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get you. Where exactly in the article is Eco2000 and Octeon mixed up, and where does it not state correctly that Eco2000 started with ABB and Octeon with Adtranz?
Furthermore, Octeon postdates the Class 145 and any relationship to the 12X is only in the 12X's use as testbed; and the Adtranz part in the S-102 was the electronics and running gear of the powerheads only (with Talgo delivering the middle cars and Krauss-Maffei the carbody), so I have doubts about it being that consequent an Octeon, too. (Can you give sources?) --Rontombontom (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Images[edit]

I was looking in commons for "adtranz" and found these images :

schematic electrical diagram

and on ru:wiki ru:Электровоз BR 185

I don't think the drive image can be used here, which is a shame. However the electrical schematic can. Would it be worthwhile re-texting it in english? It also confirms (apparentently assuming it isn't yet another hoax..) that the transformer taps are 2+2+1+1 with 2 each for each bogie 1 for head end power 1 for auxilliarys.. Is it trustable? Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You can find a similar drawing for the Class 145 here, again showing 2+2+1+1. However, I have my doubts about the legality of the Russian drawing -- it is probably a re-texted German-language Adtranz, Bombardier or DB drawing taken improperly (see "HBU" = Hilfsbetriebeumrichter = auxiliary converter). --Rontombontom (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Move proposals[edit]

The "TRAXX" brand name was applied to an existing product range, so it's logical that the first parts of the article don't mention it. However, TRAXX is a modular product platform, thus the first parts of the article describe the emergence of the modular concept and the main components. Thus for example the parts on the final drive, the bogie, the ester-cooled GTO converter do describe the TRAXX, and in my opinion moving the 12X/Eco2000/Octeon/etc details completely to the main articles would remove important context, and I am against.

The Class 145 family/Octeon section is indeed more detailed on the Class 145 than the Class 145/146 article linked as main article, but that only means that the Class 145/146 article is and is in need of significant expansion, not that any detail is unnecessary here. (I did plan to do the expansion myself, but won't do it in the near future.) --Rontombontom (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the principle of covering the 145's and 146s here, but, I think some of the detail in this article is superfluous eg A further six locomotives were built for the Swiss railway MittelThurgauBahn doesn't seem to be to be relavent background info. I think the 'pre-TRAXX' machines are gone into in a little too much detail in this article eg I think:
The competitors for the DB Class 121 included two of the forerunners of Bombardier Transportation: German locomotive manufacturer AEG Schienenfahrzeuge, a part of AEG which was controlled by Daimler-Benz at the time; and ABB Henschel, a German locomotive manufacturing branch of Swedish-Swiss company ABB. Components of both the AEG and ABB concepts were built into the prototypes of the DB Class 120 for trials from late 1991
is getting off topic - 'or' if it is relevent to TRAXX - how?
ditto :
Meanwhile, ABB developed its own design of a modular electric locomotive platform, the Eco2000 concept
- so this should be mentioned in 12X? - it's a contemporary to that locomotive - that is the link..?
Enough of my complaints - constructive suggestion below
What seems to be forming/emerging here is a History of german electric locomotive development - an article I would be very pleased to see.. An article like that would seem to solve the issue of having (subjectively) too-high levels of detail in a number of articles eg this one, 12X, others, - an universal link to the History of.. article would do a lot of the work here, prevent bloat, and prevent duplication of content. It would also be a great article :).
If there are any volunteers? (eg not me - not competent in this subject to the current level of detail). Thanks.Imgaril (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Additions recommended[edit]

- If I understand correctly TRAX has max. speed 140/160/200 km/h versions, where 140 has rigid "palm grip" type bearings boogie, 160 mixed tech and 200 has full high-speed boogie, with price increases as usual. The 200 km/h variant is not mentioned in the article, however.

- The article fails to mention or emphasized that genesis of TRAXX was more or less the result of certain national railways' revolt versus the technically sound, but execessively powerful and unnecessarily fast, luxury-priced "Siemens Taurus" locomotive. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on TRAXX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on TRAXX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on TRAXX. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on TRAXX. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on TRAXX. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)