Talk:Electro-diesel locomotive

Objections

Regarding the two US types, neither one meets the definition:

"Typically, they are more powerful when operating from an electric supply, since due to space constraints the diesel engine is small and therefore generates less power."

Both these locomotives used powerful diesel engines, with the electrical draw being an accommodation, and not to be used extensively (5-10 miles max).

These two types will be deleted, along with linking, in the absence of compelling discussion. Keo 17:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, did not delete. There are so few dual-mode locomotives, I feel it is important to maintain these two in the listings. Keo 09:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a section to distinguish between "primarily electric" and "primarily diesel" locomotives. Biscuittin (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

More countries

In Spain FEVE 1900 Series is also an hibrid locomotive wereass it can be powered by gasoil or electric power.--89.129.55.202 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC) (Oriol)

Hybrid locomotives

Should a Hybrid locomotive be classed as an electro-diesel or a diesel-electric or be put in a separate category? I'd say electro-diesel. What do others think? Biscuittin (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There are some complications. Should railcars be categorized as locomotives? What about Parry People Movers? I think they have LPG engines, flywheel energy storage and hydrostatic transmission. Biscuittin (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, perhaps it would be better to create a new category for Hybrid locomotives. Biscuittin (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Have just discovered there is an article Hybrid locomotive and a category Hybrid locomotives. Biscuittin (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Hybrid locomotive for further discussion. Biscuittin (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Electro-diesel Multiple Units (EDMUs)

There is currently no separate article about Electro-diesel multiple units (EDMUs), but multiple units have crept into this Electro-diesel locomotive article. The reference to the SNCF Class B 81500 AGC multiple units dates back to July 2006, the proposed bi-mode Hitachi Super Express train was added in October 2010, and I added the Roger Williams train at the start of this month.

This Electro-diesel locomotive article is linked to Danish, German, Hungarian and Russian versions:

Danish (Elektro-dieseltraktion): translates roughly into electro-diesel traction, and appears to cover both locomotives and EDMUs.

German (Hybridlokomotive): covers only locomotives, but an unlinked Hybridtriebwagen is a stub about EDMUs.

Hungarian (Villamos-dízelmozdony): appears to mostly talk about locomotives, but also references the French AGC EDMUs.

Russian (Электротепловоз): only references locomotives, and I cannot find any Russian article with references to EDMUs.

I would like to add more information about EDMUs, but would like to make sure they are in the right article; I think we should therefore regularise matters, but which option should we follow:

(1). Keep this solely for locomotives, create a new Electro-diesel Multiple Unit article linked to the German Hybridtriebwagen, and move all the SNCF AGC and other EDMU information there. There would need to be a trawl of all the links to this page to see which need to be altered to the new EDMU article.

(2). Keep this article titled as Electro-diesel locomotive, but have a specific Electro-diesel Multiple Units section and move all the EDMU references there. This could subsequently be easily changed into option (1) by moving the EDMU section into a new article and sorting out all the links, etc..

(3). Rename this article to Electro-diesel, Electro-diesel traction, Electro-diesel train, Electro-diesel (rail) or similar and keep it about both locomotives and EDMUs, with Electro-diesel locomotive kept as a redirect page. There could be specific subsections for locomotives and EDMUs, but the national examples could stay as is.

I personally do not favour option (1), as I think that the commonality of the electro-diesel drive-train between locomotives and multiple units is more important than the difference between them, and the paucity of existing EDMUs (ie just the SNCF AGCs) would yield a rather stubby article. Option (2) is a bit messy (and doesn't really solve the accuracy problem -- I'm sure there's a WP page about that).

So, I lay my cards out for option (3), but I'm not sure what exactly to rename it to, and I'd like a more experienced Wikipedian to actually do the renaming, etc.. Any other options or preferences? Tim PF (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I prefer a separate article, or at least a separate section that may grow into an article. Just as the electric multiple unit and diesel multiple unit articles are separate from the electric and diesel locomotive articles, respectively, dual-mode multiple units shouldn't be so interlaced with the dual-mode locomotives so as to lose their distinctiveness.

Drivetrain isn't the only determining factor; the purpose of usage is also a major consideration. A straight diesel and a dual mode can haul the same coaches (and do everyday), but not (usually) true about a DMU and a dual mode MU. So the form factor and usage patterns that come from it make a dual mode locomotive and MU very different things, each worthy of its own article. I can understand not giving a full article as yet, due to the relative paucity of DMMUs, but they should be set apart. oknazevad (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Drive-train was probably not the word I was after, as it's more the concept of using a dual-mode electric and diesel powered powertrain vehicle (including non-rail applications, such as dual-mode buses). In addition, I was thinking of the general railway problem of how "to provide continuous journeys along routes that are only partly electrified without a change of locomotive, extensive running of diesel under the wires or where diesel engines are banned."

I think that would ideally need a number of new articles, with a map like:

Electro-diesel about the concept of the dual-mode powertrain, rail or otherwise,

Electro-diesel (rail) about the general railway problem of partly-electrified routes,

Electro-diesel train about the trains thereon, whether loco-hauled, EDMU or eg IEP,

Electro-diesel locomotive about the actual locomotives (eventually),

Electro-diesel multiple unit about the AGC, etc.,

with a few redirection &/or disambiguation pages to cope with the dual-mode or "bi-mode" synonyms.

In the short term (and to avoid several stubby articles, I'd suggest just setting up electro-diesel as above, with electro-diesel (rail), electro-diesel train and electro-diesel multiple unit (and synonyms) all redirecting onto electro-diesel locomotive, which should then be re-sectioned to facilitate moving those bits into their (non-redirected) articles at a later date. Is that a better plan? Tim PF (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend option 3 - principle of least effort, (as well as the most interwiki links)

If either section becomes big enough then split the article at a later date - so how about a rename and a a separate section that may grow into an article as one of the options suggested by oknezavad.

I'm not sure about a name - if "electro-diesel traction" seems sensible currently.

As a note I'd advise against making the article into a list of every electro-diesel vehicle known - that's what categories are for. (or a "list of" article.Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd tend to use "electro-diesel (rail)" as I did with multi-system (rail), but perhaps they should both be "xxxx-xxxx traction" instead. I don't want to rename this one yet, but I'll also avoid doing anything else at the moment that'd complicate things later, pending a little more concensus.

As for the list -- an excellent idea. Seriously though, there are so few Electro-diesels around at the moment, it'd hardly be worth it. Most of them are quite different and notable, apart, perhaps, from the NYC crowd which could be consolidated, especially as most are already in the category Electro-diesel locomotives of North America.

The sparsity of examples worldwide is also why I tend to prefer keeping a single main article. Tim PF (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

United States: primarily diesel into NYC terminals.

I started to tidy up this subsection having copied much of the text into the "Primarily diesel" subsection a few weeks ago. Most of these primarily diesel locos or MU clearly state "electric mode is only used for a few miles of travel" (or words to that effect), so I was going to incorporate that into the revised paragraph above them, but realised that the LIRR's EMD DM30ACs paragraph doesn't say it. Furthermore, checking the linked article, the info box gives a link to a Siemens brochure which gives "Continuous tractive power 2150 kW [(2882 hp)] and supply voltage at 650 V DC in third-rail operation (DM30AC)", "Maximum speed: 160 kph in diesel operation 130 kph in electric operation" and "The DM30AC Dual Mode locomotive is able to run in electric operation through the tunnel leading under the East River and straight into Manhattan." One might infer from the latter that it uses diesel mode once it is east of the East River, but its power and speed indicates that it is no slouch and I wonder if it used in electric mode much further east. So:

• does anyone know if the LIRR just run their DM30ACs in electric mode until clear of the East River or to the end of the third rail? How far can one get at 80mph?
• how about the P32AC-DMs, which are specified to "quickly accelerate five Amfleet cars to over 110 mph in diesel mode and to over 60 mph when operating on third rail mode in New York City tunnels". How far can one get at 60mph?

So, I'd really like to change that opening paragraph, but I'd also like to be able to say that one or both of these locomotives are used much more extensively in electric mode, unlike the older EMD FL9s. Tim PF (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

To the former, I know that they are in diesel pulling out of Jamaica. If I recall correctly, they make the switch at Jamaica so if the switchover doesn't work, they can transfer passengers to another train there, using a straight diesel.

To the latter, from my understanding, Metro-North switches almost immediately out of the tunnel, as the Genesis is pretty reliable on the switchover, but apparently they still idle the engine on the way in to avoid third-rail gapping issues. So they don't need to go too far in all-electric mode.

Now, this is what I've learned on a message board from employees, so while I trust it, it's not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards; we need to find such a reliable source. oknazevad (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Article tone, jargon

I don't think phrases like "diesel territory" really belong in Wikipedia. That is slang used by railfans and railroad workers. It doesn't sound professional at all. It's supposed to use "encyclopedic tone".

Next, what exactly is a "one-seat ride"? That smacks of more slang to me, but I don't know, because I have no clue what it means. I'm a minor railfan, and I can't even guess at what that term refers to. The purpose of wikipedia is to give knowledge to people, and using terms they don't understand and can't even infer from context doesn't further this goal. I keep finding things like this; I found some phrase on the page on the Chrysler LA engine recently that meant absolutely zip to me. Apparently "a crop duster version of this engine was available..." Obviously not an official term, no context, no hint at what it is trying to say. If someone understand language like that, they probably wouldn't need to be reading a page on Wikipedia to learn about the subject, because they already know everything about it!

Last, are there REALLY electro-diesel locomotives that use different traction motors when running off of diesel and off of external power? I can't image why they would want that extra complexity when using the same motors with two different power supplies would work perfectly well. The article seems to imply that some locos have two sets of motors, and I suspect that is BS and it just snuck in there because someone wasn't sure if they used one or two types of motor..45Colt 05:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, on reading further, I find the phrase "one-seat ride" used again. I now infer that this is a informal way of saying "a train ride that doesn't involve switching trains". I still don't think it's appropriate language for a wikipedia article. Readers shouldn't have to guess at what terms mean, and official language should be used. If you insist on using jargon, kindly explain your meaning in parenthesis next to the term you use..45Colt 05:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The term "one-seat ride" is widely used, not just in railfan circles. It comes up in news coverage quite a bit whenever a public transportation route is discussed. It also strikes me as pretty obvious and not needing explanation. "Diesel territory" is also pretty obvious, but I could easily see that replaced with "non-electrified lines" without any loss of meaning of brevity. oknazevad (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

bi mode

Why does bi-mode redirect here, when other types of bi mode exist - such as theElectro-diesel multiple unit? Is there a better way to do the redirect? Turini2 (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

We could make a disambiguation page (with Template:Disambiguation), but Bi-mode redirection is used in one article only (Hitachi A-train), so we could instead link from that article directly to the right article.--BIL (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Other

Are there any electro-diesel trams or electro-diesel trolleybuses anywhere? Peter Horn User talk 00:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• WDAP5 71000.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)