Talk:British Rail Class 70 (diesel)

Appearance

I've just seen a photo in Rail Express magazine for October 2009. What a weird machine! It looks like a Reliant Robin. Biscuittin (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictures at Railway Herald [1]. Biscuittin (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

I have added "merge" tags to this and Freightliner Project Genesis. There is also GE PH37ACmi which currently redirects to "Freightliner Project Genesis". Biscuittin (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The 'reference' which supported the confirmation as Class 70 no longer exists -- it was a transient magazine news page (that would not be archived) -- which is hardly what you call a reliable source! (I've replaced it with a {{fact}} tag)

Is Project Genesis going to build other locos, or just this one type? If just the one, then I would suggest "Project Genesis" is moved to the Freightliner page, as a subsection, with links to the Class 70 page for the loco details. There is considerable overlap of text, so some kind of merge would be sensible, but we need a new ref for 'Class 70' before we can be happy that this page is the place to put it.

EdJogg (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added new refs for the Class 70 designation. I agree that it is not clear whether "Project Genesis" will include more than one class of locomotive. Biscuittin (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A pic of the two Class 70s in Freightliner livery (in the US) was on the cover of a recent Rail magazine. I am now even more certain that my suggestion is correct: use this page for all the loco details, and mention the project on the Freightliner page (converting Freightliner Project Genesis to redirect there). -- EdJogg (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Suits me. Biscuittin (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles merged. 83.100.251.196 (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Regenerative braking

Quote: "with a further 3% increase in efficiency from regenerative braking, the energy from which is used to power auxiliary motors". How will this work? Will the current go direct to the auxiliary motors or through a battery? I suspect the savings will be negligible, and will not justify the added complication, but perhaps I am too cynical. I'd go for something like a Green Goat hybrid but I suppose the weight of the batteries would rule this out for a high-power locomotive. Biscuittin (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Regenerated electricity goes to fans etc (a few kilowatts or more usually) - no battery storage as in "Green Goat" in this one as yet..

Otherwise I agree - more marketting gas that real benefit. But maybe not that difficult to implement with modern electronic power supplies.. just a couple of switches, and some extra prgramming... on second thoughts it seems to me they'd need an extra set of inverters and rectifiers .. maybe,maybe not83.100.251.196 (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like they could only get a 3% figure if the regenerative braking was working all the time - eg auxillarys use around 3% of the total generated power..

Found a reference that says that - and have changed the text and references to fix that. The +3% efficiency is definately only when braking. The original reference was a bit unclear and may have been second hand info.83.100.251.196 (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Things on front / Made in Turkey

Can anyone confirm the purpose of the stripy blocks on the front - one suggestion is that they are "anti-climb" blocks - part of a safety package for collisions - but aren't such things no use on locos with buffers as in the UK?

I had assumed they were just covers for some equipment, but you could be right - they might be "anti-climb" blocks. That would explain the corrugations on them. They might not work in conjunction with buffers but I assume it is a standard design for various markets. Biscuittin (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Also some of the order going to be made in Turkey by Tulomsas?83.100.251.196 (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that some of the Freightliner locos will be made in Turkey? Biscuittin (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops. "Also are some of the locomotives.." - the info I can find says that Tulomsas will produce GE powerhaul locos for Europe - but it's not clear if europe includes UK. [2].83.100.251.196 (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

-- The reference to Turkey in some of the press releases appears misleading. The first two units that have just arrived in Wales were shipped directly from Norfolk Virginia according to local newspaper. Further information indicates that production units will assembled at Tulomsas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.19.250 (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Exterior walkways

Are there "two lengthwise exterior walkways"? It looks to me as though there are just short walkways behind each cab to give access to the cab doors. Biscuittin (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This pic is a bit misleading [3] - I think there are wider alcoves just behind the cabin, This one shows that the loco is walkable, from end to end [4], but that the handrail prevents it - so yes - they're not designed to be walked along. This image is clearer - [5] the 'walkway' is clearly fenced off. I wonder if it's walkable within the engine compartment..83.100.251.196 (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Length over buffers

The article currently has two sources for specifications : http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view//freightliner-powerhaul-loco-design-on-show.html and http://www.therailwaycentre.com/News%20Nov%202007/261107_Freight.html

Both have exactly the same data, except that the railwaycentre.com says length is exactly 23m, whereas railwaygazette says 21.7m

Earlier on http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/10/ge-enters-uk-loco-market.html says 23m, I think that must have been an estimate? Later articles (2008 onwards) all say 21.7m eg [6]

Freigtliner's own pdf says 21.7m, but says it isn't definately a final figure: [7]

I've left both in the article for now. I've changed to freightliners own most recent specs, this also confirms details about the 3% energy efficiciency when braking (see above).83.100.251.196 (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Newport docks

According to my 'spies' the first 2 locos should now be at Newport Docks - the vessel "BBC KUSAN" left there a few hours ago...83.100.251.196 (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work! Biscuittin (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Link to BBC KUSAN [8]. Biscuittin (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Image

I've added a CC image from flickr of 70001 on the way to Leeds - http://www.flickr.com/photos/onemananhisdog/4122004036/. Scillystuff (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

good, I've linked to to commons as well.87.102.78.86 (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Pedant's note

By the time you read this the article will have moved to "British Rail Class 70 (PowerHaul)" (note the capital H).87.102.78.86 (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor revert - nicknames and other stuff

[9]

• The original class 70 is already mentioned at the top of the page :)
• Nicknames are ok - there is actually a section in the infobox for them... But would it be possible to wait a suitable period of time until a nickname can have been shown to be in common use amongst the cognoscenti.87.102.82.88 (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I call them "Reliant Robins". Biscuittin (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've recently seen them described as "Scammell Townsmans" in a railway magazine. Biscuittin (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Good find... Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor referencing issue

[10] Question do the references relate to the new insertion about DC locomotives - ie do they say that 70 was previously a DC electric number.?Shortfatlad (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really much reference needed given if you look at the foot of the page it shows Class 70 (I) as a DC 3rd rail loco pre-1969. CrossHouses (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Right I'll shift it back then.Shortfatlad (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 20:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

---

British Rail Class 70 (PowerHaul) → British Rail Class 70 (diesel) — relisted 81.111.114.131 (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A better way to disambiguate, ownership may change, power source will not. —Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Note A separate proposal is also under discussion at WT:UKRAIL#Disambiguation of British Rail Class xxx articles re disambiguation by year of introduction. Mjroots (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Biscuittin (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - PowerHaul is not the operators name rather the GE family of loco's. CrossHouses (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. The article at British Rail Class 70 and both hatnotes should be changed as well. I'd use British Rail Class 70 (diesel locomotive) and British Rail Class 70 (electric locomotive), respectively (I don't know why people always want to be so terse when it comes to disambiguators in article titles. Not that they should be really verbose, but there's nothing wrong with adding an adjective to the noun form of either "diesel" or "electric" in order to provide some context.) I'm a big believer that Proper Nouns should be avoided as disambiguators though, if only for the simple fact that their normally too specific. WP:DAB has always tended to agree with that as well (the instruction to use a "generic Noun" has been a component of that guideline since it began, after all).
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 09:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  Naturally, all relevant fixing of hatnotes and double redirects will be attended to if the articles get moved. Mjroots (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  What I was attempting to point out is that British Rail Class 70 is a completely separate article, dealing with a completely separate locomotive. Both article titles should be changed, not just this one (although, this should be changed to avoid the use of a Proper Noun for the reasons I outlined earlier).
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 11:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  That article is also subject to a move request, to enable its current title to become a dab page. Mjroots (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  Ah, I missed the other one somehow. Just to be clear, I support that plan completely, I just wanted to make it clear that this should be part of a larger plan to deal with the three pages. Well, that and I wanted to state my preference to use "X locomotive" instead of just "X".
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

guidelines agree with one part WP:DAB " However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used." - however I think the "powerhaul" part of the title should be considered not as a disambiguation qualifier, but actually the commonly used name eg [11] quotes, brackets are optional.87.102.67.84 (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose name change - "Class 70 PoweHaul" is (probably) the commonly used name - as pointed out above it is also the name the manufacturer uses [12] [13] ("GE will supply Tülomsas with the necessary technology and material to assemble GE’s PowerHaul series locomotives in Turkey for the European, Middle East and North African markets.") My analysis might be flawed.

more info "Powerhaul" is definately a GE trademark, not freightliner [14]

• However support the general process of creating a better disambiguation. - just not the proposed diesel name.Shortfatlad (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• That was a dodgy close ("current name fulfils requirements of WP:Naming conventions") - it doesn't reflect the actual discussion at all. Re-opening to encourage further discussion. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. One is diesel, the other electric. Makes more sense. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support for consistency. British Rail Class 70 (electric) and British Rail Class 70 (diesel) are adequate disambiguation as well as being accurate. This would be a much clearer and more understandable pairing for readers. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Based on evolution series

[15] "GE Transportation’s PowerHaul Locomotive is based on the company’s global Evolution® Series locomotive platform introduced in 2005." I think the article should mention the heritage - or link to GE Evolution Series.87.102.67.84 (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The link's dead - I found this http://www.genewscenter.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=5389&NewsAreaID=2 and this http://www.genewscenter.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=5389&NewsAreaID=2 PowerHaul draws on GE Transportation's Evolution platform, a family of technologies rather than a specific locomotive.

However it's not clear what they mean - the engine is different, and the bogies - so I suppose it's the electronics and cab or something, more info from GE would be useful.Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nicknames

I removed this from the infobox : |nicknames = Predators, Bulldogs<ref name="gehandover">{{cite video |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et9upu56JI4|title=GE celebrates first shipment of PowerHaul locos destined for Freightliner in the UK |publisher=Freightliner}}</ref>

Reason - what somebody says at a corporate unveiling (before the locomotive has even been seen by those who would give it a nickname) - does not constitute a 'proper' nickname. If anyone is aware of any common 'real' nicknames developing please use that.Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If these names are in common use, they would be reported in journals such as Rail, Rail Express, Modern Railways etc. All of which meet WP:RS and may be used to reference the fact. Mjroots (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Move page to "Powerhaul (locomotive)"

It is suggested to move the page to "Powerhaul" or a similar title since the scope of the article now included locomotves used for the Turkish state railways. There are plenty examples of locomotive articles used by more than one state railway system which are located at a more general article title name - eg EMD Class 66, TRAXX, Eurorunner . Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree - The example of the EMD Series 66 is indeed a case in point, as the "United Kingdom" subsection starts with: "Main article: British Rail Class 66. I suspect that we need both articles here too, with Powerhaul (locomotive) referring to the family (including non-British versions), whilst the British Rail Class 70 (diesel) refers to the UK version, operations, fleet, etc.. Tim PF (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with what ? - what about the turkish locomotives - are they "British Rail Class 70" - if you oppose the move then what do you suggest to do about the turkish locomotives of the same class? Come up with a solution Oppose is not a solution.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the wholesale move of this article to "Powerhaul (locomotive)". There should be two separate articles:

• Powerhaul (locomotive) -- referring to the family (including Turkish and other non-British versions), (analogous to EMD Series 66),
• British Rail Class 70 (diesel) -- refers to the UK version, operations, fleet, etc., (analogous to British Rail Class 66)

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer than I was last night. Tim PF (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This was already discussed per a WP:RM discussion at British Rail Class 70 (electric) and on this page (above). Consensus was that the method of power should be used to disambiguate. Powerhaul may not be a permanent operator of these locomotives, but the power unit is not going to change. Mjroots (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

PowerHaul is not an operator, it is a brand for a type of GE diesel locomotive. There are two issues to deal with: 1) the two different British Class 70s, which are already disambiguated by power (diesel v electric); 2) the UK models of GE PowerHaul (equivalent to the British Rail Class 66 article), and any other future non-UK models of GE PowerHaul (equivalent to the EMD Series 66 article).

Having said that, given how strange it is to have PowerHauls listed as being British Rail, maybe for consistency we need a "Chemins de Fer Ottomans d'Anatolie PowerHaul" article or something....! Wheeltapper (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"British Rail Class foo" is a naming convention, applied for consistency across articles covering locomotive and multiple units operated on Britain's railways since the introduction of TOPS in 1968. Technically, "TOPS Class foo" could be an article title, but for the majority of articles this would fail WP:COMMONNAME. This is something that should be discussed at WP level though. Mjroots (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the previous naming discussion (the conclusion of which I have no problems with) took place before it was known that locomotives would also be operated by TCDD.

In terms of the convention - perhaps it's time to consider that a useful convention for older locomotives is starting to make less and less sense - earlier locomotives were designed and built in the UK for usually exclusive BR use. This locomotive is neither designed or built in the UK and is not exclusively for UK use - as shown by the Tulomas production. I'd like to refer you again (see above) to another type of naming convention for modern locomotives - where the common name (usually the manufacturers name) is used as per Eurorunner etc.

(P2) Also does it really make sense to have separate articles for Turkish and UK locomotives when they are built at the same factory, as part of the same contract and production tranche ?Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so now is a good time to consider a change in the naming convention, and since it's your idea, I'll wait for you to raise it at WP:TRAINS (how do I shortcut the talk-page?). Tim PF (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not in the slightest but interested in pointless discussions with a bunch of useless timewasters. Try actually writing an article, not a bunch of trivia, fancruft, and speculation as many UK railway locomotive articles are. When you have done that you might understand just how useless wikiproject trains, and wikiproject:uk railways are, and how completely non productive the head in the sand, change nothing without a big discussion attitude is. Good luck. Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've created an EMD Series 66-inspired "generic" PowerHaul (locomotive) page, taking out the Freightliner-specific stuff but leaving in all the "family" stuff. I have left the various Wikipedia links to this Class 70 article for now, but some would need changing to the new "generic" article if it is thought to be a Good Thing. Would it make sense to now remove the "general" PowerHaul stuff from this class 70 diesel article? If and when anything more is known about the Turkish locos it could go in the generic PowerHaul article, or they can get their own "TCDD Class whatever" article if someone feels inspired enough. Wheeltapper (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Good. I've changed the redirect at Powerhaul (locomotive) to point to PowerHaul (locomotive) (and talk pages), as this Class 70 article can be picked up with the hatnote. Tim PF (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really want to piss on the fire - but that's a WP:Content fork - it's not really an acceptable solution with that much duplication of information. Sorry :( Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm no expert on how these things work. Are you saying is not acceptable to have separate articles for locomotive families (PowerHaul) and specific models (the Freightliner class 70 locos, and maybe one day the TCDD/European/African locos)? Does this mean than rather than worry about the PowerHauls, we should be focusing on deleting the EMD Series 66 article and putting everything into the British Rail Class 66 article? Wheeltapper Anyway, I've converted this article into a Class 70 focused one, with the other page focused on generic PowerHauls. If it is not acceptable it can easily be put back.Wheeltapper (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Is to merge EMD Series 66 actually what you think to be a sensible or helpful conclusion? Or is it just a pointless throwaway argument ? Sf5xeplus . Read WP:Content fork for all your questions about what is a content fork and what isn't.(talk) 16:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It was far from a throwaway comment - the Class 66 seems directly analogous to me, as does the EMD G16 (although I'm not familiar with those locos). Wikipedia doesn't seem to treat every JT42CWR as a British Rail Class 66, and even after looking at WP:Content fork (especially "Article spinouts: "Summary style" articles", and the discussion of POV Fork and Content Fork) I don't see why "PowerHaul" is different (assuming the non-UK locos are "for real"). As an aside, I see NS Class 1500 get their own article, but they were the same physical machines as British Rail Class 77. If the rules require a single article for PowerHaul, is the sensible thing perhaps to call it something like "PowerHaul (locomotive)" or "GE PowerHaul" (or whatever). That also avoids the Wikipedia-only name "British Rail Class 70" which puts consistency before reality. True consistency is never going to happen, as reality is to complicated.

It looks to me like we have Mjroots (below) and Tim PF (above) more or less saying there should be more than one article (which makes sense to me), but Sf5xeplus saying this isn't allowed by Wikipedia (at least not for PowerHaul).

So the options include:

* BR Class 70 single article (includes everything: apparently meets Wikipedia policy but is divergent from reality)

* as above but called something like "PowerHaul" rather than give the impression Turkey is buying BR locos.

* PowerHaul family article, plus article for specific details of British locos (cf EMD Series 66) (70012 might be locally noteworthy but is it globally?). But this could be a "Fork" and so not allowed?

* PowerHaul family article, articles for any country-specific locos which people feel inspired to write (cf EMD G16) (also a Fork?)

On balance, there is rather more to life than worrying about Wikipedia v. reality, so I won't. Wheeltapper (talk)

See below - the issue is not about having two articles - it's about creating content forks to avoid addressing the intial problem. Incidentally I'm the one who would have to maintain those 2 articles if past experience is to go by.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sf5xeplus, that comment makes it sound like you want to own the articles. Everyone is free to edit articles constructively, and nobody owns an article. Mjroots (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Re the earlier mention of changing the article's name away from "British Rail class foo". As this will affect a number of articles, I've opened a discussion at WT:UKRail#Naming convention where all editors are welcome to comment. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Turkish locomotives

I've removed the empty section on Turkish locomotives. They should have an article of their own. Mjroots (talk) 10:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - please see point P2 above especially.Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you volunteering to right the article they should have?! - I think something like the coverage used at EMD G16 might be sensible.Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the EMD G16, am I right in assuming that you mean an article for a family of locomotives which only have one or two sub-main articles for specific versions? Tim PF (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm not volunteering to write the article on the Turkish locomotives! However, there is precedent for separate articles, see British Rail Class 77 and NS 1500 Class. Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Content fork

Please read WP:Content fork - it's not ok to create two articles with such similarity. eg In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. blah blah.

Please come up with a proper way to treat this.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

For now I've reverted to a version before the content fork [16] using the old title. A simple solution would be to use the name "Powerhaul" in one of it's variant - it meets the specifications laid down at Wikipedia:Article_titles of "Recognizability", "Naturalness", "Precision", "Conciseness". I see that there is a problem regarding "Consistency" - here there are at least 2 conventions:

• The convention of "British Rail Class XX
• The converntion of "(Manufacturer) + brand name or manufacturers code)
  • Plus the various ways of dealing with splits of content. eg British Rail Class 77, MaK / Vossloh G1206, Eurorunner, EMD G16 etc Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hold on. Wikipedia:Content forking says this under "Acceptable types of forking": "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." How do British Rail Class 70 (diesel) and PowerHaul (locomotive) not fall into this category? The two-article solution is the best for the encyclopedia as a whole. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not the creation of separate article, but when article are created (split) to avoid dealing with the initial problem. Two article with say 75% identical information is no good, 25% shared info seems ok.

As I've tried to explain the simple solution would be to move the page to a title like "Powerhaul locomotive" You might also note that as yer there actually isn't enough info for a split - it just makes stubs, or duplicates. Later it could be a better bet.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree that the 2 article solution is best overall, despite the fact that there may be a 75% overlap of shared content. The EMD Series 66 precedent is more than enough proof that this can be done successfully, to the overall benefit of the encyclopedia. Rushing to delete the other article and its history (currently a redir) will do nothing to help your case, Sf5xeplus. WuhWuzDat 22:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Where did you crawl out from ? Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

From underneath the ballast rock in the middle of the tracks! Now seriously, this encyclopedia is an open project, and anyone may join in this discussion at any time, provided that they have something constructive to add to the discussion, unlike your comment above! WuhWuzDat 22:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't request a deletion for a potential move without you assuming some negative motive. Ironically you had nothing constructive to say. Your second chance appears below though ... :: Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read my first comment above, and then reconsider your next nonconstructive comment VERY carefully! WuhWuzDat 22:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It's ok to insult me and my motives then - question: why do those that insist on being part of some sort of consensus never actually appear to do any work on the article? Is that the only outlet you've got left - is actually writing a well reference article too much trouble ? I've seen your conributions - you don't deserve the slightest respect, neither does mattbuck whose trolling revert caused all this -is that enough for you?

Really your interest in "discussion" and creating an artistic user signature shows that you are really ever going to contribute the the real output of this encyclopedia - too much time spent fucking around doing nothing.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I would STRONGLY recommend that you spend some time reading WP:CIVIL, and the recent warning I left on your talk page, before your situation gets any worse. WuhWuzDat 22:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sidenote: due to the incivility and personal attacks displayed by a certain editor above, and further incivility on his talk page, an AN/I report has been filed against this individual. Anyone who wishes to add his point of view on this matter is most welcome to do so. WuhWuzDat 01:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the 75% overlap: I guess we'd pretty much reached that point before you reverted things back earlier today (Saturday, 5th). There were probably a few more Turkish bits to come out of the Class 70 article (I wasn't sure if any of the British locos were made in Turkey), and a little more effort would probably get it down to about 60% overlap. Once the Turkish locomotives get into service, either the generic article or a Turkish sub-article would get updated (with no changes required to the Class 70). When they export elsewhere, only the generic article needs updating, and the overlap reduces even further.

If we were to wait until it's an estimated 25%, we'd possibly be dealing with a three-way split, but it'd probably be a much bigger effort to untangle into separate articles. That's not counting the problem of the one person who insists that it needs a content overlap of only 10% to justify not having to sometimes replicate an edit in two or three related articles. So, if there appears to be a consensus to split the articles at some time (albeit with minority dissent), it might as well be done sooner rather than later.

Oh, and thanks for the link to WP:Content fork, as having read that, I can confirm the justification under "Acceptable types of forking": Article spinouts: "Summary style" articles and Related articles. Conversely, "Unacceptable types of forking": POV forks "... generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." I cannot see any difference in POV, unless you count a difference of opinion on the number of articles required. Tim PF (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What Tim PF said - me too. Anyone got any details of the Turkish locos? Wheeltapper (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Name of the UK freightliner versions

By the way the common name for the british locomotives is definately not "British Rail Class 70" - "Freightliner Class 70" is much more commonly used both in publisher magazines, and in forums etc. This can be confirmed with a web search or looking at the railway magazines. - here is an example of what I am talking about http://railexpress.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/uk-launch-for-freightliner-class-70/ "Powerhaul class 70" is also common. Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is at the current title because that is where the current naming convention for British locomotives that have operated on the mainline since 1968 says it should be. If you would like to propose a change to naming convention, please contribute to the current discussion about this very subject at WT:UKRail#Naming convention. I suspect that a proposal for "<operator> class foo" titles would not garner consensus though because TOCs and FOCs are transient (or at least transiently-named) entities. We have only the one article about e.g. British Rail Class 158s despite their being used by Regional Railways, Central Trains, Wales and West, Wessex Trains, Wales and Borders, Arriva Trains Wales, South West Trains, East Midlands Trains, Scotrail, First Scotrail and probably others as well. Equally, while Class 70s are only currently used by Freightliner, there is nothing to stop them being purchased by any other TOC or FOC. Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion for vehicles that were made after BR ceased to exist (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Alternative_suggestion, 2nd suggestion) - though in general I don't see an absolute need for a cast iron convention - eg here "freightliner class 70" works (mostly) well and is definately the common name, elsewhere the manufactures name is an option - eg see how they do it for locomotives in the USA Category:Diesel locomotives of the United States - an example I've given over there is "Hitachi Class 395" - a google search shows that the world at large seems to have no issues with that moniker eg http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=hitachi+class+395 , hopefully my dreadful prejudice about the UK wiki project being populated by dinosaurs unable to cope with change will be proven wrong on this occasion (ie by using the names 'the rest of the world' appears to me to use, and not insisting on a anachronistic title) my fingers are crossed.Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Article names should reflect usage in the real world. A convention which compels the creation of misleading new names which do not exist in reality (outside of wikipedia) is a silly convention. Wikipedia is an encyclopædia; it should, above all, be based on sources; that should apply to article names as well as to content. bobrayner (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The USA naming convention is without the advantage of a common British naming convention (ie TOPS classes), which is still used even after the demise of British Rail. Tim PF (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Using the tops classification is one sensible option - eg "Freightliner Class 70" appears to be the most common use by web search. That's slightly complicated by the TCDD locomotives - but as they don't exist as yet that issue could be ignored for now. Following a similar naming method to the US locomotive articles would probably give "GE Powerhaul" (which would have to be disambiguated to "GE Powerhaul (locomotive)" because they also make a diesel engine of the same name. It too is in common use. The alternative "GE PH37ACmi" is just too obscure (in my opinion); it is used occasionally - but I wouldn't recommend it as a title when there are more commonly used trade names to choose. I note that even the turkish sources use the english term "Powerhaul"Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that using the TOPS classification, eg Class 70 is very sensible, and can theoretically use the same nomenclature for all locomotives used in Britain, so long as one doesn't apply ephemeral prefixes. I suppose one could use the manufacturer, but as you point out, that means a GE PH37ACmi, rather than a GE Class 70. But I am, of course, only advocating the usage for those actually used upon British railways, as the TCDD versions can either have their own article, or just be included in the PowerHaul family article. Tim PF (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"Class 70" on it's own is way too ambiguous to use on its own and "GE Class 70" is incorrect. Anyway, I would very strongly oppose any move away from the naming convention title, whether that convention is the current "British Rail Class 70" or any future convention that gains consensus. Regarding the Turkish locomotives, the standard way of doing things would be to include a summary of them in the family article which can be expanded into an article when we have enough information to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree on your suggestion of how to deal with the turkish locomotives, and that "GE Class 70" and "Class 70" are not good alternatives. However there are at least two alterntive names (see above) both of which are accurate and in common use. Only one can be used. I can't accept that a naming convention for British Rail locomotives is applicable here. Nevertheless to give some sort of continuity is good - which makes "Freightliner Class 70" a good choice (currently) - it is also verifiable the most commonly used name for a variety of reliable sources. TimPF's mentioned "GE PH37ACmi" - which is definately accurate, and in use, but not the most common. It could be an option though. Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Why can you not accept that the naming convention for articles about current railway locomotives in Britain applies to an article about a current railway locomotive in Britain!? Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it gives an incorrect name, that nobody else uses, and that fails WP:common name and wp:verify, when good alternatives exist. It's not really clear where idea that a naming convention for British Rail locomotives must apply to all post-BR locomotives comes from.Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that you're referencing only one naming convention, de facto naming conventions also exist for general electric built locomotives, for locomotives with recognisable "trade names" eg (Blue Tiger (locomotive) , Invicta (locomotive) etc) and locomotives built in the post EU Directive 91/440 era operated by multiple countries (generally "Manufacturer" + "product name"), which could also be said to apply here.

Please bear in mind that not everyone reading this will be as knowledgable as the editors - a wrongly applied convention gives the uniformed reader false information. Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing the issue here, just because you disagree with the naming convention does not mean it does not apply, nor does your repeated assertions that it is incorrect mean it is incorrect (as has been pointed out several times, it is the British Rail classification scheme that is being named, not British Rail the train operator). There is a currently ongoing discussion trying to find something better, but until there is consensus for something different, this title is correct. The naming conventions you cite are for articles about the family of locomotives, not for the specific class of locomotive running on the railways in Britain and there is not a 1:1 correspondence between the them (e.g. there is one Electrostar family of MUs but 4 classes of them running in Britain). There is consensus above that the article should be split with this one being about the Class 70 trains on the British network, with the split article being about the family of locomotive. The article about the family of locomotives will be named in accordance with the convention for families of locomotives. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It really seems like you are ignoring what I say here. Please see Wikipedia:Article titles - I'll quote a bit for you This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. - you established for me that the title is ambiguous, in addition to what I said before that it is not consistent with reliable sources, and is not the common name. That page represents a policy - if you want to make a naming convention it should try to follow the policy.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Also why do you say there is a consensus to split the article, when you said yourself that Regarding the Turkish locomotives, the standard way of doing things would be to include a summary of them in the family article which can be expanded into an article when we have enough information to do so. which sounds like no to a split currently - something I agreed with you on.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I know the source of the confusion (and I'll try to be objective for this paragraph). Thryduulf uses the term family article, following on from my own usage of the PowerHaul family article, and appears to have broadly agreed with my preceding comment, at least in including the Turkish locomotives either in the family article or on their own, but not in a "Class 70" article (whatever prefix or suffix used). You then agreed with that, but I guess (from you last comment and others) that you probably didn't mean to. Whatever the cause of your confusion, Thryduulf picked up on your unintentional agreement, which he noted as the consensus in his last comment.

The split, will, of course, be back to the state we had a few days ago with the PowerHaul (locomotive) (ie family) article, and this (something) Class 70 Britain only article. HTH. Oh, BTW, I pretty much agree with Thryduulf's comments today (Tuesday); I'll not comment on your own comments due to your apparent confusion. Tim PF (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply to timPF

I'm not entirely sure what your saying there, what are your current thoughts? And please try not to comment on what I am trying to say (that's even more confusing) - if you want clarification please ask - for the record - I don't think any split is justified at the moment. Actually I'm, not even sure if you are talking to me or Thrydulf when you say "you". I'll try to see if I understand what you are saying:

Having a "Powerhaul" family article that included the turkish locomotives (at least at first) - yes I agree with that, I meant to agree with that :)

Alternatively: I have no problem with an article that includes the "Class 70" term with the turkish locomotives as a footnote, as there is so little info about them. That might not be a permanent solution though.

I don't agree with (I don't even know if it's been suggested) is any split (currently .. no crystal ball .. there isn't enough info to justify it .. currently)

I thought Thrydulf was saying there was consensus for a split - is that the misunderstanding?

I'm not sure what your position is - I think you are in favour of a "family article" , but you are also proposing a split - or is the split on hold for the future ?? Is that right? Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(By the way - if someone can make a WP:BOLD snap decision - should the turkish locomotives be removed from the infobox, and confined to a footnote in the current article - I'm 50:50 on this - but there does appear to be advantages to doing this)Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll answer this later today. Tim PF (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my position, there should at present be two articles. This one solely about the locomotives used in Britain; and a second one (which I previously described as the "family article" about locomotive family, including a summary of the British and Turkish locomotives. Ultimately there should be a third article, dedicated to the Turkish locomotives, but at this moment in time there is not enough material to warrant it. I was under the impression from discussion above that there was consensus for this. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

First, let me say that agree with Thryduulf's last contribution (except, perhaps, for the consensus bit), and then, Sf5xeplus, I'll reply to your last set of comments from 9 March 2011.

I used "you", as my comments were directly below your (ie Sf5xeplus's) previous comments (of 21:56, 8 March 2011), and were therefore most likely addressed to you, Sf5xeplus, but I could be more specific and address you as "Sf5xeplus" if you (ie Sf5xeplus) insist. Since I referred to "Thryduulf" in the third person (and in contrast to "you"), it is very unlikely that I was referring to him. I suppose there was confusion on your (Sf5xeplus) part as I started by writing an objective paragraph (which by definition was probably not a reply), and then specifically said that I wasn't replying. -- I'll try to remember to not do that again.

The split (ie two articles) has been discussed at length recently in the Move page to "Powerhaul (locomotive)", Turkish locomotives, Content fork sections above, as well as here in Name of the UK freightliner versions. There appears to be a consensus for this from everyone apart from you (Sf5xeplus), and yes, the confusion (misunderstanding) was that Thryduulf had inferred that you (Sf5xeplus) had also agreed (as per his last comment).

My position (as I stated in my previous comment) is to have two articles: "the PowerHaul (locomotive) (ie family) article, and this (something) Class 70 Britain only article.", which is of course, back to the state we had a few days ago (ie PowerHaul (locomotive) and Class 70 (diesel)). This will, of course, solve your (Sf5xeplus's) should the turkish locomotives be removed from the infobox, and confined to a footnote in the current article problem.

As for being BOLD, I'd make the split (as per the majority consensus), but last time this was done, Sf5xeplus (talk · contribs) went and reverted the edits, and I just don't want to get into an edit war. Tim PF (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you thrdulf and timpf for clarifying - I understand the general idea behind a split into an "overall" and "specific" articles but there just isn't enough info (or subclasses) to justify a split a present. In all the examples I'm aware of where splits have been made there is sufficient material for more than one "specific country/companie/operator/subclass" article.

By the way wikipedia:consensus isn't a democratic vote - the article explains better than I probably could. There are various essays that are worth looking at (see the links at the bottom of the linked page). In particular I like the bit Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. Generally I'd like to read good reasons why something should or should not be done.Sf5xeplus (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, can I interpret your (Sf5xeplus) reply as roughly: "I'd be content with a split into a PowerHaul (locomotive) (ie family) article, and this (something) Class 70 Britain only article, but not at the moment"? If so, would you (Sf5xeplus) be content if we proceed as follows:

• Start a new talk section "Proposed article split", headed "It is suggested that this article be split into a PowerHaul (locomotive) (ie family) article, and this British Rail Class 70 (diesel) (Britain only) article." I'll add a short support paragraph, and you can add your reasons above in an oppose paragraph.
• Add the {{split}} template to this article ({{split|[[PowerHaul (locomotive)]]|[[British Rail Class 70 (diesel)]]||part=yes|discuss=Talk:British Rail Class 70 (diesel)#Proposed article split|date=March 2011}}).
• Start another new talk section "Disputed title" to match the {{Disputed title}} tag...

At this point, I realise that the name of this article may well depend on the result of the proposed article split. I'd actually like to narrow things down a bit, eg with an alternate title and/or alternate titles tag arguments (along with section=Disputed title).

I also want to know if "PowerHaul (locomotive)" is acceptable for the family article (but redirected back here if we don't split -- as it is at present), and that we probably want to go for "[something] Class 70", "[something] Class 70 (diesel)", or "Class 70 ([something])" to cover the British locomotives (and Turkish until there's a split). If so, it means that we need to keep the current redirection to here at the [future] family article name (eg PowerHaul (locomotive)) until we've resolved this article's name. Tim PF (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the name of the article(s), if we have separate articles for the family and the locos in Britain, then my opinion is that:

• The family article should be at PowerHaul (locomitve) PowerHaul (locomotive). I don't think anyone objects to this title.

Typo above corrected. Cheers to Tim for the headsup. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• The article about the locos in Britain should remain/be at British Rail Class 70 until there is an outcome to the ongoing discussion about the naming convention is known. This will result in the least amount of disruption due to renamings - if the status quo emerges as the consensus opinion then no renaming will be necessary, in all other cases only one move will be required. Thryduulf (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

reply to timPF If you feel the need to start new section for clarity please feel free to do that. As far as I can tell there is no real justification for a split at the moment but if you want to propose it then that's your choice. As to the name either GE Powerhaul, Powerhaul (locomotive), which seem totally suitable names for the current article. I suggest ignoring the turkish locomotives at the moment since there is only very small amount of info on them, which can easily be incorporated as a note, or appendix (also WP:CRYSTAL - the TCDD locos don't exist yet). This means that Freightliner Class 70 and/or Freightliner Powerhaul are also good options.Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"GE PoweHaul" wouldn't be a bad title for a redirect to the family article. I'd object to any name for either article containing "Freightliner" for the reasons I've explained previously, I wouldn't object to "Freightliner Class 70" as a redirect to the British loco article, but I'm not completely convinced of its necessity. "Freightliner PowerHaul" doesn't seem to be needed at all and would make a bad title for either article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well there needs to be some solution- I understand your fears for the future - currently the name "Freightliner Class 70" is correct, common use and all the other tick boxes. - we don't have to / probably aren't supposed to second guess future events .

"GE Powehaul" also appears to be commonly used - I would guess that people will recognise the name - how about that as an acceptable as a title for a single article ? It is completely immune from problems in the future, and macthes the pattern of naming used for other General Electric locomotives. Please say yes... Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how many more ways I can explain why I am completely opposed to including the names of TOC/FOCs in articles titles, but I'll try once more. When you have a large group of articles about the same subject (such as locomotives and multiple units that have been allocated a TOPS class and run or did run on the British railway network) there is significant value in having stable, consistent and predictable titles for the article titles. Some classes may only ever be operated by one TOC/FOC throughout their operational life in Britain and so the TOC/FOC name can be used clearly, but this does not offer consistency. Who should be named in the title for the Class 66 article - EWS? DB Schenker? Freightliner? DRS? (First) GBRf? Europorte? Colas? Advenza Freight? Fastline? Metronet? Stobart Rail? I can link to British Rail Class 70 now and know that this link will remain valid whether or not XXYZZ Rail starts operating Class 70s next year. The key word in your statement is "currently", of the classes introduced between privatisation and 2006 (5 years ago) I think only the 168s, 185s, 332s, and 390s have not changed operator or the operator has not changed brand name since introduction, so is unlikely to provide the stability or consistency required.

Regarding "GE Powerhaul"/"GE PowerHaul" (if we have any article with this word in the title we must remember to set up redirects from the capitalisation we don't use), sorry to disappoint, but I disagree that this would be a good name. It requires knowledge of the manufacturer and does not match other locomotive/mu family articles. Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really agree that the use of "GE" is wrong eg see Category:GE_locomotives. This page lists GE as the 4th most recognised brand in the world [17]. Can you reconsider or suggest a name then.Sf5xeplus (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That one recognises the GE brand does not mean one knows that they manufacture the PowerHaul locomotive. As for suggesting a better name, yes PowerHaul (locomotive), it requires the least knowledge, matches other family names and does what it says on the tin. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way do we use CamelCase or not eg should it be "PowerHaul" or "Powerhaul".Sf5xeplus (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

We should use CamelCase as per the registered brand name (trademark), unless there's something contrary in WP:MOS. Whichever way, the other should be used as a redirect so that either are valid. Tim PF (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember someone telling me that wikipedia didn't use it - but PayPal FedEx YouTube RadioShack exist etc - so either they were lying to me, or the rules have changed, or it was something else. All I found was Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) which says Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable . If you prefer using the version trademarked I'll agree with you. Are you alright with PowerHaul (locomotive) then for the initial article? (obviously all the redirects will be made as well). If they sell hundreds then there would almost certainly be sub-articles created. That can come later.. Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In which case, it looks like we're safe with "PowerHaul", and if you scan back through my past comments, you'll find that I've been fairly consistent with PowerHaul (locomotive) (for the family article -- and something with "Class 70" for the British version). I'm not sure what you mean by "initial article", but if they do sell hundreds, will some of them be a wider body non-hood version as illustrated at Tülomsas to assemble GE PowerHaul locomotives? Tim PF (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

To make it utterly clear, I think PowerHaul (locomotive) is the best title for the family article, but I do not support it for the article about the British locomotives, nor as the title of a single article about both (although I do not think a single article is a Good Thing, if we have one it should be titled per the British loco as the most significant part of the article). The article about the British locos should be named in accordance with whatever naming convention emerges as consensus, and remain at British Rail Class 70 until such consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible change to the title of this article

This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 20#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avicennasis (talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

How many locomotives have been ordered, and by whom?

The lead states that Freightliner ordered 30 locomotives, and that 20 units are also to be produced by Tulomsas for TCDD. Tulomsas has an agreement to assemble Powerhaul locomotives for the European, Middle East and North African markets (without specifying exactly where).

We now see that one has been assembled by Tülomsas, but the Railway Gazette article states that "According to Tülomsas the locomotive will undergo a year of trials with TCDD before being shipped to the UK". It was out-shopped in dark green with a small Turkish flag on each cab side, so I guess that this is one of Freightliner's order of 30, which will be repainted when it is shipped to the UK.

The www.turkishny.com article states that "TULOMSAS will manufacture 30 PowerHaul locomotives for the GE and 20 others for the TCDD". But that's not quite the same 30 that were ordered by Freightliner, as 12 of those have already been shipped direct from Erie, PA, so there must be at least another 12 on order with GE that will be assembled in Turkey.

So, either someone is quoting the wrong figures, or there's an undisclosed (or unnoticed) order or three. Anyone any ideas? Tim PF (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that too - no explanation found - It could be an error, or there may an additional order, or GE may be producing additional locos for lease and potential future sales. (My guess is the latter) . It could be a journalist's error too with them adding 20 to 30 and getting 50 without realising that some have already been built in the US - I'm not sure but if you think it is likely to be innacurate please just remove the number. Sf5xeplus (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made a web-search, but cannot find anything more meaningful at the moment. I suspect that you may be right in thinking it an error, as I've only seen orders for fifty (Freightliner 30 and TCDD 20), with no lease orders (leasing companies are often separate subsidiaries). One possibility is that 10 of the Freightliner order are to be assembled in Turkey, and the TCDD order is with GE, in which case "Tülomsas will manufacture 30 PowerHaul locomotives for [] GE [of which] 20 [are] for the TCDD" may have been mistranslated. Tim PF (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Names

Are we bothering with names - an early one was named "PowerHaul" [18] and I just found out that another has been named [19] 70004 The Coal Industry Society - I don't care either way (unless they name it after me..) so it's your call.. If you want to keep a tab on it though I will keep a record of them.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added these two to the article. Have any more been named? Biscuittin (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Article title

This should be discussed at WikiProject level, which is where this discussion has been copied. Mjroots (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I see that British Rail Class 66, British Rail Class 67 and British Rail Class 70 (diesel) all have "disputed title" tags. This was discussed at length on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways and I thought we had a consensus to keep the existing titles. Why are the tags still in place? Biscuittin (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the {{disputed title}} tag. Whilst there may have been no consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways, there has been no active discussion for over 2 months. Tim PF (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Would you remove a "citation needed" tag because nobody has bothered to find a reference - it's a similar thing. Templates like this exist to alert editors and readers to problems.Imgaril (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, you are the only person who is disputing the title. This is not a strong case for a "disputed title" tag. Biscuittin (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that the rest of the planet doesn't use "British Rail Class 70" - it's not the official name, and and not the common name. It fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. :(

Imgaril (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There has been a long discussion about names for British Railways/British Rail/post-privatisation locomotives in general. I'm not happy about locomotives which were introduced by British Railways being labelled "British Rail" but, in the interests of standardisation, I have accepted a compromise. Biscuittin (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I take your point about verifiability, Imgaril. What name would you suggest? Biscuittin (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not a similar thing to deleting a {{citation needed}} tag. The real point is that these 3 {{disputed title}} tags were left on the articles, even after there was a long discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways, which could gain no consensus to change this naming convention. If you wish to resurrect that discussion, then that is the correct forum, not here, as it affects more than just these three locomotives. Tim PF (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Imgaril's point is that it does just affect these 3 locomotives because they are post-privatisation ones and have nothing to do with British Rail. If the discussion is re-opened, I suggest Class 70 diesel locomotive (Great Britain). Biscuittin (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

But it also affects the 20 or so multiple unit classes introduced since privatisation. Should we tag all of those too? The current tags have spectacularly failed to alert editors to the problem as Imgaril wants them to - this is the first discussion on the topic in several months, and most of us here were involved in the last one. (I also support the format linked above, but it was soundly rejected when I proposed it at the last discussion.) Alzarian16 (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If the editors wont fix an issue then the readers need to be alerted to any issues. Maybe you need new editors? Imgaril (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think most of the recent multiple units have "family" names like Bombardier Voyager family. Biscuittin (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and do some re-naming. Let's see if anyone reverts it. Biscuittin (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have re-named Classes 59, 66, 67, 70. I will wait and see if anyone reverts these before I tidy up the links. Biscuittin (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) Reverted back to British Rail Class 59[20], British Rail Class 66[21], British Rail Class 67[22] and British Rail Class 70 (diesel)[23] per WP:BRD. Predictable consistency is useful feature and I've seen no established consensus for changing otherwise. —Sladen (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) I've just (tried) to Revert per WP:BRD. Please discuss. Ugly and inconsistent for no reason. but it looks like it's going to need an admin to clear up. There's a reason we try to discuss this kind of thing first. —Sladen (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

We have discussed it ad infinitum at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways without reaching a conclusion. That's why I decided to be bold. You say " Ugly and inconsistent for no reason". Please explain what you mean. There is a good reason, namely these locos have nothing to do with British Rail. Biscuittin (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, as Imgaril has pointed out, the name British Rail Class 70 (diesel) is not verifiable. Biscuittin (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) "Ugly"—long-winded: much longer title (approximately twice the length), and containing (Capitalised Parenthesis), this causes the page title/URL to detract from readability as it over-powers the content; since it can be avoided easily in this case there isn't really a benefit. "Inconsistent"—four pages named using a different schema. They stick out like a sore-thumb and the poor editor is left trying to remember what syntax is in use. If you believe that the locomotive types have nothing to do with a "British Rail", then it's your job to convince other people of that. To myself, the name makes perfect sense—especially in the case of British Rail Class 59 where there have been so many owners/operators yet always running on the same metals (except for the single Class 59 that went to Germany). —Sladen (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As and aside, if it is decided to use country to disambiguated, it probably should be "United Kingdom" and not "Great Britain". I believe that wikipedia allows (UK) too, but I can't find that link. Don't blame me if I'm wrong about that.

The reason for that is because it is NOT A BRITISH RAIL LOCOMOTIVE...

For Sladen's benefit - the reasons for changing are given above in this section - but to summarise - the use (specifically) of British Rail means that the title is imprecise. More importantly it fails the general standards for using common, and/or veryfiable names for titles. No reliable source uses "British Rail class 70", and no "trainspotter" source uses it either -

I think we should use one of the common names for this locomotive. One alternative is "GE Powerhaul locomotive" which matches a consistent set Category:GE locomotives the other commonly used name is "Freightliner Class 70" which also matches another set of the form "Company + Class" - eg Midland Railway 115 Class and many others. so there are at least three options with multiple variations for tweaking, maybe too many options ?Imgaril (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

We should not use "UK" because these locos do not work in Northern Ireland. Biscuittin (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) Imgari: Artificial political designations do not really make sense in the case of trains. There is the 1,600 mm Irish railway network, which is separate from the 1,432/1,435 mm British railway network in-turn connected via the Channel Tunnel to the greater European system. —Sladen (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I will explain the thinking behind my preferred title. "Class 70" - I don't think many people will disagree with. "Diesel locomotive" - I think the title should give the reader an idea what the article is about. "Class 70", on its own, might be a ship or a tank or anything. "Great Britain" - it is necessary to disambiguate because other countries use the TOPS system. Biscuittin (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Class 70 would of course be preferable, but there are ambiguity issues, which is the reason that Class 70 itself is a disambiguation page (and the same applies for virtually all "Class XXX" titles). I also agree that "TOPS" is of little help because it a system, rather than a schema built with that system (the schema in this case being the British Rail-originated Classification system)—in the same way, XML is not a schema, it is a system for making schemas. —Sladen (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit war?

I think we have an edit war over the "disputed title" tag. It keeps re-appearing. Biscuittin (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I added it back - there tag should be there - there is a problem with the title - as has been explained. Why remove it.?Imgaril (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are saying that you will keep adding it back until the title is changed to the one you want. Not everybody agrees with you and you might fall foul of the three revert rule. Biscuittin (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly. WP:BRD should apply; I originally removed the tag, Imgaril reverted that, and I don't think that the discussion has ended. I still disagree with Imgaril about that tag, but I'm not going to remove it until there is consensus. Unlike in March / April, when the current discussion ends, I'll make sure that the tags are not forgotten. Tim PF (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The tag is there for a reason - eg try searching for "British Rail Class 66" on a web engine - you'll find practically nothing except wikipedia and its mirrors - my conclusion is that it's the wrong name..

It's not on to remove tags when the fundamental reason for the tag being placed has not been addressed. I've explained this repeatedly - the name "British Rail Class 70" is not the common name, and it is not used by reliable sources. It is also misleading since the title can be taken to imply that the thing is a British Rail locomotive when it is not.. Is that not enough? Imgaril (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we have to have a bit of flexibility in naming. For example, China Railways DFH shunting locomotives is not what the locos would be called in China. Biscuittin (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS .. though if you see a problem with an other articles name then maybe you should fix it? Imgaril (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that articles about Chinese locos in the English Wikipedia should be titled with Chinese characters? I think you are pushing your argument to the point of absurdity. Biscuittin (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It's you that brought up the other article - I didn't suggest changing it. You seem to have totally misunderstood. Basically what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says, if you had bothered to read it, is that what other articles are like is probably totally irrelevant.

How did you come to the conclusion that I was suggesting to change the chinese articles name? I'd appreciate it if you could answer that.Imgaril (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I will answer. You said "if you see a problem with an other articles name then maybe you should fix it" Biscuittin (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

So where did you get from that sentence that I thought that you thought the title should use chinese characters? I suspect you are either been deliberately stupid or just trolling - see Hanlon's razor. If neither then you need to relearn to read english, or maybe even are just stupid, in which case please accept my apologies.. Imgaril (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Biscuittin (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

It might be worth considering dispute resolution after a while - the page has been moved back twice [24] [25] I don't have any subjective (personal niggles) or objective (rules and guidlines) objections to either of the two names that were tried. Other names have been suggested too, which seem like good alternatives ie "GE Powerhaul locomotive" "Class 70 locomotive (GB)" and "Freightliner Class 70" all of which seem to be ok as far as accuracy and also each have a fair number of common use examples. I don't understand the objections to the move so if no resolution is found or closer after whatever time span is usual I would think it would be time to take it to a dispute resolution process with some independent feedback. 83.100.201.61 (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Biscuittin (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Disputed title

The title fails WP:Verify and the guidelines at WP:Article titles. No reliable source uses the term "British Rail Class 70", and there are several alternatives. The tag Template:Disputed title has been on the page for some time since previous attempts to change the title were blocked by users at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways. If anyone can resolve this issue please do so. Imgaril (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• If there was no consensus to change the title in the previous discussion, then the issue is resolved, unless you would like to file a move request. Black Kite (t) 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia versus reality problem to get worse

It looks like an "Ipswich to Bigge's Camp railway Class 70" is going to join the Chemins de Fer Ottomans d'Anatolie and British Rail versions.[26] A US designed, Australian built loco with no link whatsoever to a UK organisation which exists purely for some legal technicalities. Wheeltapper (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop beating a dead horse. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

An edit today suggests we will need to start beating dead kiwis - anyone got a reference for the claim that New Zealand could be using these British Rail locos? Wheeltapper (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense claims added by a user making stuff up. DX class are being replaced with DL class. --LJ Holden 20:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Fire 2

On 24 April 2012 70007 also caught fire at Bramley whilst hauling waggons containing dangerous goods.

Until this fire can be referenced as serious, and not a minor incident.. There's a danger of mentioning every time one blows a fuse. The "dangerous goods" line is a red herring. Images http://www.flickr.com/photos/67992223@N03/7112331815/in/photostream and http://www.wnxx.com/pictures/70007.htm - looks minor..Oranjblud (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Prime mover

The "prime mover" section of the infobox has been left blank. Is it the GE PowerHaul P616 2,750 kW (3,700 hp) engine shown at GE PowerHaul? Biscuittin (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Try this link http://www.getransportation.com/resources/doc_download/299-powerhaul-series-brochure.html

It's mentioned in British_Rail_Class_70_(diesel)#Background_and_specification.

Maybe there should be a see also GE PowerHaul from the infobox.Oranjblud (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added top links to both articles. Biscuittin (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Class numbers in the 70s?

Was 7* under TOPS reserved for electro-diesels or for DC electrics?

Empirically, the Woodhead locos (76 & 77) do indeed suggest that the 7* series vs. the 8* series was for indeed for DC locos (catenary or 3rd rail). However I've never seen it claimed that this was particularly deliberate, whilst I have read that the electro-diesels were deliberately grouped in this range. Does anyone have a robust source?

In the meantime I've reverted the change, mostly to avoid the redlink. If we do change this, the link ought to point to a section within the TOPS article. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've amended again. See British Rail Class 70 (electric), Class 71, Class 76, Class 77 - all these were straight electric. The electro-diesels were Class 73 and Class 74 - also Class 72 which we don't have an article on because that was an early designation for the locos which eventually became Class 73/0. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This class of locomotive is properly classified as a cl.70 because the Railway Group Standard document GM/RT2453 (issue 2 Sept 2011) 'Registration,Identification and Data to be Displayed on Rail Vehicles' on p.15 has changed the TOPS classification of National Rail (ex BR) traction. Classes 01-09 are for diesel shunters, 10-79 for diesel locomotives and classes 80-96 are for electric locomotives. Class 73 is allocated to electro-diesels. (All diesel shunter classes are preoccupied and where future electro-diesels will go - who knows). Barney Bruchstein (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British Rail Class 70 (diesel). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080926214517/http://www.freightliner.co.uk:80/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=52 to http://www.freightliner.co.uk/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=52

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British Rail Class 70 (diesel). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110715150808/http://www.railmagazine.com/news/default.asp?storyID=183 to http://www.railmagazine.com/news/default.asp?storyID=183

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 70 (diesel). 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/20120320215504/http://www.rail.co/2011/02/11/freightliner-names-powerhaul-70004/ to http://www.rail.co/2011/02/11/freightliner-names-powerhaul-70004/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

"British Rail"

Unclear why this article attributes the locomotive to "British Rail" See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail As Wikipedia's article on British Rail makes clear, "British Rail" was a brand name of British Railways, the long defunct nationalised operator of the British railway system. It was defunct long before this design was thought of. "British railways TOPS class 70" would be more correct (capital "R" for "British, small "r" for railways).

TJ — Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Because it is the British Rail TOPS classification system that is still used. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

See also several previous threads on this page, including #Possible change to the title of this article, which has a link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 20#Naming convention, which itself is directly relevant. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

With the impending renationalisation of, at least, the passenger side of British railways, it will be shortly be an accurate desscription once again. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)