Jump to content

Talk:New Zealand DL class locomotive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Change of class name

[edit]

It has been announced that the class will be called the DL class, not the DK class that railfans suggested. This page should be moved to NZR DL class. --Lee Begg (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source? – Matthew25187 (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to this NZPA article, the classification is DK. --Lholden (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that no official designation has been made public yet. It has be reported that the latest Kiwirail newsletter specifically clears up the naming of the class. A quick search on Google doesn't show anything official (a couple of railfan sites do appear). I'm happy to wait until an official announcement before the page is moved. --Lee Begg (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this month's Railfan states "DL" as well... but I'm currently in Malaysia so can't go down to the shop and check :-) --Lholden (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the Railway Observer magazine also states it's DL. --Lholden (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to locate a reference to the "DL" class designation in the latest issues of either NZ Railfan or Railway Observer (or, for that matter, in the only KiwiRail newsletter I could find). Which issues and articles did you find this information in? – Matthew25187 (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the apparent conflicting information on this issue from several otherwise normally reliable sources, I do not consider it reasonable to change either the name of this article or any references to the class designation in this article at this time. This matter would be more appropriately resolved when an announcement is made from an official source. – Matthew25187 (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


As I've seen the KiwiRail newsletter saying that it is the DL class for Dalian, and that the loco plan on the page says DL 9008, I'd say it needs to be renamed to NZR DL Class. Yak52fan (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having just obtained a copy of The Express (issue 2) I have now read the article which explains the class designation for the Dalian locomotives (specifically the DK interim designation and the DL permanent designation) and now have no objection to the renaming of this article to NZR DL class. Official sources don't come much more official than an internal KiwiRail staff newsletter! – Matthew25187 (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. I'm all in favour of a rename then. - Axver (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with move. --Lholden (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interface to supply power for passenger cars

[edit]

Does the locomotive have interfaces to supply passenger cars with power instead of using a generator van? --Dabbelju (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move sections around

[edit]

Would it be ok to merge the parts which cover the contract, "not built here" issues, and other similar criticisms into one section, and the mechanical and electrical design features into another. Also is there a source for the technical info.

Also the reference for ".. a modern desktop style control layout and the same ZD126C traction motors that were ordered for the DX class locomotives" : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewZealandLocomotives/message/73390//531008

isn't accessible, and as a message board post, probably isn't considered a reliable source.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a mirror of the Malaysian dead link here http://www.penangwatch.net/node/3151 if needed. Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy appears to proscribe the use of external links to message boards, see WP:LINKSTOAVOID point 10. They therefore should be avoided as a source. For guidance on the Criticism section see WP:CSECTION. — Matthew25187 (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technical info

[edit]

The was a link to a message board that didn't work about the traction motors - they are said to come from Yongji Electric Machine Factory (this ? http://www.yjemf.com.cn ) The traction motor type isn't listed, could it be a ZD106 or ZD108 type?) - the alternator is (sort of) types JF205A and JF205C [1] and [2]

References, and a fact check for this info is needed. Also, do they use DC motors - what are the electrics..? Imgaril (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The specifications mentioned were sourced from the magazine mentioned in the References section. This complies with Wikipedia policy and thus the facts may be considered reliable unless it can be proved otherwise. – Matthew25187 (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "New Horses on the horizon" .. if so this edit should be ok [3] hopefully.Imgaril (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operations

[edit]

I removed some info [4] the primary issue with this info is that a snapshot of locations on a given day is not necessarily useful. In general the section needs long term info, and must be referenced.Imgaril (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

[edit]

re :

Critics also questioned the potential reliability of the locomotives to be purchased,[1] citing a case of Dalian-built locomotives in Malaysia encountering a number of initial technical problems (see KTM Class 29).[2]

I don't mind if the sentence is in or not, but I would recommend reading the KTM Class 29 article and links - it seams that:

  • The locomotives had failed, but the malaysian railways had made no attempts to fix them, despite the vehichles still being under warranty from Dalian. (It's not clear if minor or major faults led to them being out of service)
  • Uncofirmed reports (rumours) state problems with the electronic control software, and a threat of legal action from Dalian loco too.

It seems to me given the resignations from KTM officials that at least part of the problem lies with KTM.

Some of the other criticisms (ie the claims that the locos looked "too heavy") sound like sour grapes. It's a decision that has to be made whether this is valid stuff for and encyclopedia (or whether it's just magnifying the view of a few vocal opponents). As I don't have any proper first hand experience of this I am 50:50 on whether it should be in the article.Imgaril (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns raised about the reliability of the locomotives purchased, or more specifically the quality of the products produced by the manufacturer, with reference to the KTM locomotives from the same manufacturer is relevant to this article as it contributes to a balanced perspective on the subject. The merits of the claims are irrelevant: the statement in question refers to the reliability of the locomotives being questioned citing the KTM locomotives as an example (fact), not that the DL locomotives will be (or are) unreliabile because of the KTM example (dubious and unsubstantiated). To omit this fact from the overall picture presented by the article skews its perspective, potentially violating Wikipedia editorial policy (Wikipedia:NPOV) and bordering on editorial bias. – Matthew25187 (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't want to be accused of 'censorship' or 'bias' - my 50:50 concern would be the desire to make sure the article has good editorial oversight - and avoids listing what might be trivial claims. There is merit in leaving it in - however if it goes back it I'd ask that the identity of the critics be clarified - eg was it a union spokesman, politician, or magazine editor or rail journalist? (if only because the source isn't accessible). However if the source was a letter to the editor from someone of unidentified authority I'd have some qualms again.
I'm not sure what User:Deamze s objection was though. I'll put it back in (again) - but if who is speaking can be identified more clearly that would be good.Imgaril (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That "critics" have questioned the reliability of the DL locomotives was reported in an editorial published by the New Zealand Railfan magazine, a well-regarded publication in New Zealand railfan circles (and cited in the removed text). I'm not sure if the same concerns have been reported elsewhere (haven't gone looking for other sources) but I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the magazine in this matter. I note that the same magazine also went on to refute these claims and debunk the DL locomotive reliability issues alleged by the "association" with the KTM example. – Matthew25187 (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few other sources, such as Andrew H (a KiwiRail Locomotive Engineer). However they're not verifiable like the NZ Railfan is. Personally I'm against removing anything that is a verifiable opinion, no matter how much I might disagree with it.--LJ Holden 00:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference New Zealand Railfan editorial was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Readymade Train Wreck". www.mmail.com.my. The Malay Mail. 10 October 2008. Archived from the original on 13 October 2011. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 13 October 2008 suggested (help)

Classification

[edit]

I think we should change our classifications of locomotive articles to "New Zealand x class". I've suggested it on the NZR WikiProject page, but had no response. --LJ Holden 10:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

While there may be some merit to the proposal (I have yet to formulate a response), what I do believe is that the names of the relevant articles should be modified only after the WikiProject NZR Manual of style has been updated by consensus to reflect such a change. I'd hate for this issue to turn into another petulant edit war as with the naming of the Johnsonville Branch article. — Matthew25187 (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I've added a section to the discussion section of the MoS page. --LJ Holden 03:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Article name

[edit]
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: procedural close after Talk:NZR_DL_class#Requested_move was opened. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NZR DL class → New Zealand DL class – Due to recent discussions at the Wikipedia:WikiProject NZR/Manual of style pages. --LJ Holden 01:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly can you fix the link so I can see the discussion.
Secondly there are a lot of pages to move eg everything in Category:Locomotives of New Zealand and downwards - if consensus has been reached move them all.
Thirdly if an agreement had been reached elsewhere I have no objection to it - though I have no objection to the current name either.Mddkpp (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the link now :-) This move was really keep the discussion going as it appears to have died, but yes everything under Category locomotives will need to be moved, I may to a multiple page move request if other editors agree. --LJ Holden 09:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll post a note on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains - just to see if anyone really objects. I'm not really familiar enough to have an opinion.Mddkpp (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are fine as they are. They are classes of New Zealand Railways (the railway), not of New Zealand (which is a country in the South Pacific, not railway). Tony May (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem Tony, there's no such thing as "New Zealand Railways". Follow the link to the article and you'll see the problem. The "NZR" designation disappeared with the privatisation of New Zealand Rail in 1993. --LJ Holden 21:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply but I think that's fine too. The railway designation is needed to distinguish what the classes are of (boats? potatoes?). British Rail dissappeared about the same time, and everything is still classed as British Rail Class 91 because they were built by BR, and inherited by subsequent RoSCos Tony May (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The British Rail example is not a good one, as there is no consensus for it Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_20#Naming_convention, and it is in contradiction of some basic wikipedia naming rules such as verifyability and common use. See WP:Title for guidelines.
I'm really not familiar enough with railways in New Zealand to give reliable advice, though I note that on the web at least the name "Kiwi Rail DL class" is in common use - however - for modern units the emerging convention here seems to be to use the manufacture + type name, as per EMD G12, Siemens Vectron - I can't see that working here as DLoco DL class would alienate just about everyone, and generally isn't used.
It looks like this could be a problematic rename - as User:Tony May's opposition has just made the previous decision at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NZR/Manual of style a 50:50 split.
Maybe through the decision out to the wider community or just WP:BOLD and move the page anyway.?Mddkpp (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest listing this and all others affected at Wikipedia:Requested moves (Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_multiple_page_moves) as possibly controversial and let the community decide.Mddkpp (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair call, will do that when I get the chance. Agree the British Rail example is not a good one (just look at South African and Australian practice). --LJ Holden 23:21, 27 February 2012 (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.

Requested move

[edit]
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: allow moves. There have been a couple of objections to this, but they've been adequately addressed by the nominator both here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NZR/Manual of style, and I note that the Wikipedia:WikiProject NZR/Manual of style has stipulated this for two months with no objection. Aervanath (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

}} Relisted for further input. Jafeluv (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– Due to discussion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject NZR/Manual of style. There is no consensus for change yet. LJ Holden 23:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote - there is no consensus for change yet. I've put forward the reasons for making the moves which have been largely unopposed, but I accept that does not mean consensus. --LJ Holden 21:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Yep, so far there has been very little feedback - Personally I prefer stuff of the style New South Wales C38 class locomotive (without the underlining) - as an example - to the ignorant "NZR XX class" could be as much a piece of computer hardware or a submarine o anything else - so I favour tacking on "locomotive" on the end. As to whether it should be NZR or "New Zealand" I can't say. I think it would be worth taking extra account of any opinions (other than mine) expressed from people outside New Zealand - as they are the ones likely to be affected by choice of names.Oranjblud (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the "locomotive" addition, you're right, it is confusing - good to see another example being cited from NSW. The issue with "NZR" is that, especially in the case of the DL class, there are many locomotive classes that were never operated or owned by NZR (which, correctly, is actually the New Zealand Railways Department followed by the New Zealand Railways Corporation), or they were operated by private firms (e.g. Wellington & Manawatu Railway). --LJ Holden 22:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I've now added "locomotive" to the moves, where appropriate. --LJ Holden 22:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll plus+1 that. It's definitely more accessible to the less technically minded.Oranjblud (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted for further input. Experience has shown that it's better to wait for input from more than a couple of users before moving a large number of pages. Jafeluv (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I object to "New Zealand" replacing NZR. I think it would have to be New Zealand Railways if you were going to change it. Personally, I would stick with NZR, but add "locomotive" where applicable at the end. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But there isn't any entity called "New Zealand Railways" anymore. Hasn't been since 1990. Therein lies the problem - the only consistent thing across all of these pages is that they're all New Zealand locomotives (even then there's the WFs and DQs...). --LJ Holden 10:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
There's the alternative of using uncapitalised R as "New Zealand railways ..." - though when a title starts to look like a sentence it may be getting too long. What about going for technical correctness - eg for older ones "New Zealand Railways Department xxx class", for new ones "KiwiRail xxx class" etc ? (or whatever is correct) - it's unambiguous.Oranjblud (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not technically correct though - the reason why we moved to NZR in the first place was for consistency across all the article titles, due to editwars (from memory) over the article title for the DC class, which has had multiple owners/operators. Same with ex-W&MR locomotive and other private line companies. "New Zealand railways" could be a compromise, but it does make the article title very long. --LJ Holden 19:54, 18 March 2012 (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.

Problems and reliability - contradictions

[edit]
whilst

The article currently contradicts itself by believing both sources, I don't see how both can be right.. I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle. I characterised these as 'teething problems' in the lead - not sure if that is a phrase that makes sense in NZ or elsewhere.

I'd like to leave this to someone more knowledgeable to fix, but will fix myself eventually if not.. Thanks.Oranjblud (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The latest Express newsletter also says that these are still teething problems with the DLs, and goes on to state that the DX class was still having teething issues four years after entering service. So in this instance I'd believe KiwiRail themselves, after all they do own and run the things. pcuser42 (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a reliability issue here. I would say the information published by RNZ is out of date. There's no way it can refer to the month of July, so the "currently" statement is definitely incorrect. It more than likely refers to the time that the document was issued, which could've been anything from at least 20 days before the article was published (as that's the time frame for release of information under the Official Information Act 1982). However there's a chance it could've been up to date. Either way it's not a reliability issue, and the fact the information is contradictory doesn't mean its unreliable. --LJ Holden 05:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see what's happening here now - the "twice as likely" is from the 21st July RNZ report http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/111263/faults-revealed-in-kiwirail-locomotives , and is just repeated in the 31st July RNZ, probably by which time the problem had been fixed. I have removed the 'unreliable' and altered the text a bit.
I thought this might be due in part to politics eg from RNZ: A KiwiRail document obtained by the Labour Party.., and Rail and Maritime Transport Union general secretary Wayne Butson says.. - both of these are likely to take a negative view on a non-locally built locomotive. (I recall that unions definitely didn't want these locomotives in the first place). On the other hand the company is going to put things in a positive light, or their decision appears flawed..
It looks like the order is still contentious amongst the unions so I've added a mention of Wayne Butson claim. I've edited that section, it's probably too early to draw any conclusions.Oranjblud (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. --LJ Holden 00:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eight new locomotives

[edit]

How do we know that the eight new locomotives from Dalian are in fact DLs? Given that eight DBRs are soon to be withdrawn they could be replacements for those. pcuser42 (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on comments by KiwiRail staff. I'm sure there will be an announcement shortly. --LJ Holden 23:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 15:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on New Zealand DL class locomotive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 16:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Zealand_DL_class_locomotive&oldid=1202149911"