Talk:List of most powerful locomotives

Consensus

I noticed a recent edit war on this page. I want to attempt to resolve those issues by getting consensus on whether or not the article should be divided into 2 separate lists, divided by whether a given locomotive is of a single- or multi-frame design. Personally, I favor this change. I believe dividing the list this way would make the article easier for readers to "digest" the information by breaking it into smaller pieces. Further, I propose the list be further broken up by locomotive type (e.g., steam, diesel, electric, etc.) for the same reason.

I would also like to propose that the article revert to being under the name "List of largest locomotives" as I find this name is more representative of the overall scope of the article, with names like "...most powerful...", "...strongest-pulling...", etc. as redirects.

I hope we as editors can work together to make positive changes for this article, and work to avoid edit wars and vandalism. I apologize if this not the correct place or manner to discuss these changes, I have not edited Wikipedia articles for quite some time, so I am a bit out of practice. Ninjasquirrell12 (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Instructions for listing specifications and performance figures

The following procedures should be followed so that the list remains uniform:

Specifications and performance figures are defined as weight, tractive force/effort, and power. For the purposes of this list, weight must be listed in terms of tonnes (t) (metric tons) and then converted to short tons. Tractive force/effort must be listed in terms of pounds-force (lbf) and then converted to kilonewtons (kN). Power must be listed in terms of horsepower (hp) and then converted to kilowatts (kW). These procedures may require reverse converting. For example, if you find a locomotive that you think qualifies for this list whose weight is listed only in short tons, you must convert short tons to tonnes using a third party (ex. Google), and then use that tonne figure to find the short ton figure again using the Wikipedia conversion tool.

Furthermore, if you wish to list separate figures for the same metric, specify what each number represents and list the highest figure specified first, regardless of whether the number is for a "starting" or "continuous" figure, or a "simple" or "compound" figure. Again, this to maintain uniformity across the list so that users may find the top figure they are looking for. Ninjasquirrell12 (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The edict to manually convert to certain units first is silly since the conversion template has options to (1) flip the order of units if desired, and (2, not sure if needed) automatically compute and expose sorting keys in a unit-correct way. Utilizing those options would maintain uniformity while eliminating the reverse rounding errors in the original units that are currently evident in the table.

I also wonder about the primacy of lbf and hp. The article has an international scope and no particular national ties, so shouldn't SI units have primacy then, per MOS:UNITS? Astro.furball (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and implemented the change so that converting to metric tonnes / pounds-force / horsepower first is no longer necessary and reverse-conversion doesn't need to happen, while still keeping the template universal, i.e. something that can be more or less copy-pasted. Specifically, instead of

{{convert|8046|hp|kW|0|lk=on}} → 8,046 horsepower (6,000 kW)

for example we can do

{{convert|8046|hp|hp kW|0|lk=on|order=out}} → 8,046 horsepower (6,000 kW)

so that it's a very quick substitution to specify the figure in the original units of kW / MW instead:

{{convert|6000|kW|hp kW|0|lk=on|order=out}} → 8,046 horsepower (6,000 kW).

I've held off on metrication for now to give more time for objections. Astro.furball (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

References

In order to uphold Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, we should be adding references to the page's figures, especially for locomotives that do not have their own Wikipedia page. When adding new locomotives, please do add references and any help acquiring references for locomotives already on the list would be greatly appreciated. Ninjasquirrell12 (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Question

Is this an unordered list? What are the criteria? Weight, power, loaded weight with tender, length? Don't forget the 2-6-6-6. Rmhermen 22:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The order is build date as near as I could tell. The intent is to list the locomotives that have been labeled as "Largest Locomotive in the World". I'll take a look at 2-6-6-6, and another look at one I added Monday, Southern Pacific class AC-12. Slambo (Speak) 14:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This article still doesn't say what criteria are used - length, weight? Rmhermen 18:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Electric trains?

There is an apparent lack of electric locomotives in the list, for example the swiss re 620, the swedish IORE and most possibly some additional engines have even more power per unit then those in the article.-Ssteinberger 23:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

General Comments on Article's Goal

The real purpose of an article such as this is a database which can then be downloaded and used for various purposes, but, unfortunately, it is unlikely that Wikipedia's infrastructure is truly capable of supporting that. A compromise might be a table that could be sorted on specific columns by clicking on column header (power, tractive force, type of prime mover, number of prime movers, etc.). Others would know if that can be done in Wikipedia and might be willing to comment on this.

But at the moment we are presented with an unwieldy list that is rather inconvenient to use, either for searching in place or for downloading for external processing.

Ideas for Sorting the List

"Most powerful" has a relatively small number of meanings. Power (kilowatts or horsepower) is the most obvious, but needs to be qualified because at zero rpm any nonzero power rating corresponds to infinite tractive force, clearly an impossible situation. Somewhat surprisingly, weight can be a very good indicator of pulling power because it determines in general the maximum tractive force possible without slippage while tending in a crude way to reflect the size of the prime mover(s) as well, at least in the cases where these are present.

There is an argument for separating the purely electric - i.e., external prime mover - locomotives from the other categories given the pure electrics' metrics are significantly different in having propulsion systems that can be considered to consist not only of the traction motors but of the external electrical power generation capacity as well. Among those that remain, one might separate between internal combustion and external combustion prime movers.

This gives us three charts. Within each, we might consider sorting first by power and second by low or zero rpm tractive force.

Finally, an additional chart might consist of a comma separated values listing (or some other spreadsheet derived format) that includes the key sort fields plus a reference back to the primary list. That reference might be just an ID number or it could be built up from a few key items such as manufacturer, class, and model.

Missing items

The Russian 8300 kw / 11000 hp GT1-001 gas turbine electrics, the largest single prime mover internal (or external) combustion locomotives, supplanting a 50 year record held by the third generation 8500 hp GE GTEL's of the 1960's.

Yellowstones

Missing from the list: The 2-8-8-4 Yellowstone type, weighing in at 514 tons – a 'mere' 54 tons short of the 4-8-8-4 Big Boy (tender weights included). Sca (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)