Talk:Tractive effort

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Engineering

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Great article. Add lbf to kN?

I am very grateful for this article on tractive effort.....particularly regarging steam locomotives. My one suggestion for improvement would be to list tractive effort in pounds force in addition to kNs. Again, though, thank you very much for a very informative article. 128.183.145.64 11:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Force diagrams

This article will have its full potential only with some of the TE represention in force diagrams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.34.133 (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a "tractive effort curve" ? I'll see if I can find one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 01:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steam locomotives

The formula for steam locomotives seams wrong - I can't see what the piston stroke has to do with it. More important it seems to me is the distance from the centre of the wheel that the connecting rod is (call this distance L)

~~ie Force from piston =P x A (pressure x area)~~

~~and A=area = pi x (d/2)^2~~

~~so max force G = piPd²/4~~

~~The force at rail = max force (G) x (L/wheel radius)~~

~~wheel radius = wheel diameter (D)/2 =piPd²L/2D for 1 cylinder (times a constant for frictional losses)~~

~~= piPd²L/D for a 2 cylinder machine (times a constant for frictional losses)~~

This assumes that the cylinders drive the wheels at maximum torque at the same time - which may not be true.? If I take an average (using all the different torques obtained as the wheel rotates) I get as an approximation Pd²L/D (for 1 cylinder) (a factor of 2/pi times less) - ? But this equation does not have the cylinder stroke as a factor?

Unless someone can explain the difference (my mistake?) I will have to remove that equation eventually. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 02:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Also for compound locomotives eg see Tractive_effort#Special_cases - surely the tractive effort is given by the sums of the tractive efforts of the high and low pressure cylinders.[reply]

I will wait a bit for clarification before making any alterations.

I worked it out ... the steam section still needs attention and references - if anyone can supply them.

--- Above text not signed or dated ---

Tractive effort calculations for steam locomotives, like Tax horsepower calculations, have little basis in fact. One can pick numerous holes in them. My own criticisms are:

They should be based on piston area, not diameter, so there should be a pi in the calculation
They should be based on crank throw, not piston stroke
The speed should be defined.

However, the usual flawed formula was so widely used that it would cause endless confusion if one tried to change it. Biscuittin (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number of cylinders

Quote from article: "For a two cylinder locomotive the average force is twice that of a single cylinder locomotive". The usual formula doesn't actually support this. I have always assumed that (going back to the question of speed) the usual formula represented starting tractive effort, so only one of the two cylinders was actually in use at the point of measurement. A single-cylinder railway locomotive is, in any case, a very rare beast. Biscuittin (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now corrected this. Biscuittin (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compound locomotives

For compound locomotives, the usual practice is to calculate the tractive effort developed by the low-pressure cylinders at 80% (instead of 85%) boiler pressure. This is probably based on the Smith 3-cylinder compound system, where the high-pressure piston "floats" at starting and delivers no force. Any attempt to calculate the force delivered by individual cylinders would have to take account of the back-pressure on the high-pressure piston(s). Biscuittin (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge from Continuous tractive effort & Maximum tractive effort

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I suggest the merge of Continuous tractive effort and maximum tractive effort into this article

I've also suggested merging Power at rail - ie making 'power at rail' redirect to a subsection of this article dealing with the relationship between power at rail, speed and tractive effort.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 02:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sections that would replace those in Continuous tractive effort and maximum tractive effort , I will proceed to merge those.

However merging Power at rail is more contentious and may not be a good idea. I will wait.FengRail (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed merge into Traction (engineering)

I suggest merging this article in to Traction (engineering) , as that title covers this and other topics.

Please see Talk:Traction (engineering)

FengRail (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous tractive effort

An important factor in determining the "continuous tractive effort" of any vehicle with an electric transmission (especially diesel-electric locomotives) is the effect of "traction motor heating", which goes up dramatically as amperage rises (amperage being directly proportional to tractive effort, in a DC traction motor). In most cases, the continuous effort is the maximum drawbar pull that can be exerted without eventually overheating the motors, and the rated speed for this effort is the minimum speed where full horsepower may be applied without exceeding the traction motors continuous current rating.

As with any electric motor, a traction motor may operate in excess of its continuous current rating, for a short period of time, with the time limit decreasing as the current rises.

For example (data from EMD SW7 operating manual):

680 Amperes/motor = Continuous (no time limit)
735 Amperes/motor = 1 hour time limit
790 Amperes/motor = 1/2 hour time limit
870 Amperes/motor = 1/4 hour time limit

These continuous speed ratings for this same locomotive model are 12 MPH (with a 62:15 gear ratio) or 9 MPH (with a 65:12 gear ratio)

Hope this info helps. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll look at incorporating that if no one else does first. The issue of working limits of drive components is covered (very) briefly in the bulleted list in the "maximum tractive effort" section.

Definately electric motors are a special case, though similar considerations might apply to heating of hydrodynamic couplings under near stall conditions.. I haven't got any data for that though.FengRail (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only such data I have on Diesel-hydraulics is an operating manual for a KM ML-4000, which states:

"Locomotive operation at very low speed: The operation of a locomotive type ML 4000 C'C' at low speed is limited by the factor of adhesion which can be attained depending on the rail conditions and also by the rate at which the heat developed in the hydraulic transmission can be carried off by the heat exchangers into the radiators of the cooler groups. Generally the train can be pulled at 10 m.p.h. for an indefinite period. In most cases, the locomotive may be operated up to the limit of adhesion available."

Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a subsection about it, I found a general reference for the topic which was lucky.

I'll see if I can find a general reference for hydrodynamic transmissions - there will we one somewhere I'm sure.

I've put some of the info in the "notes" - trying to avoid the article becoming a long winded textbook like explanation.

Possibly some of this could/should be dealt with in more detail in traction motor - an article in need of improvement.FengRail (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aerodynamic drag

< Tractive force is required to overcome aerodynamic resistance, which effect is a cube law >

Just plain wrong - in fact the aerodynamic resistance FORCE increases with the square of the speed.

86.181.178.124 (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automotive vs Rail?

Hi all,

This would be my first wiki edit, so bare with me.

Let me first caveat with: I am not familiar with rail terminology. However, working in the automotive industry, I am pretty sure the terminology used here is incorrect in my line of work. Automotively speaking, tractive effort refers to the force, either required or available, provided by the drivetrain (or, less commonly, brakes) to overcome all resistance factors (rolling resistance, wind resistance, grade, drawbar pull, etc.); tractive force refers to the actual force at the wheel-ground interface that contributes to longitudinal (front/back) motion, and is the difference between TE and rolling resistance; and drawbar pull is the horizontal force exerted by a vehicle on its drawbar coupling for towing or pulling a trailer. In math terms, TE = TF + rolling resistance = DBP + rolling resistance + air resistance + grade + etc (SAE J2188/J2014/J1234). This differs significantly from the first sentence and a half of the wiki article: "As used in mechanical engineering, the term tractive force is the pulling or pushing force exerted by a vehicle on another vehicle or object. The term tractive effort is synonymous with tractive force."

Since this article is in the train category, there would be two options for amending the issue: (1) Make a new tractive force/tractive effort wiki article for automobiles and differentiate the two articles as (rail) and (automotive), or (2) Move this article into a general mechanical engineering category (my preferred choice) and separate it into two sections, one for rail and one for automotive. Though honestly, I think the differences may be due more to mistakes or omissions in the current article than to differences in actual terminology (for example, in rail TE and TF would be synonymous, since rolling resistance is probably insignificant as compared to in an automobile).

Thoughts?

--2Tasty (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Tractive effort

Tractive effort is a short article largely covered here and anything that is not should be merged. Having separate articles serves merely to confuse. Globbet (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC) edited 21:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...not sure what the protocol is for merge proposals...I agree. thegodofbigthings (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The process is described at Wikipedia:Merging. Slambo (Speak) 12:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Tractive effort. Tractive force changed to redirect to Traction force. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tractive force → Vehicle tractive force – "Tractive force" is ambiguous as it may also refer to the general mechanical concept of traction force. The lead of tractive force already clearly idenfies its scope as applied to vehicles, hence the proposed title. fgnievinski (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Jenks24 (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Polyamorph (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Can you demonstrate, using extensive usage in reliable sources, that the term "tractive force" is explicitly used for traction force? All we need otherwise is a {{not to be confused with}}.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Tractive effort since that is the main focus of this article. Tractive force should redirect to Traction force, which should be noted in the hatnote with a link to Tractive effort. Polyamorph (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Trains has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Physics has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Engineering has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tractive effort as COMMONNAME. The physicist in me wants to call it a force, but in everyday use, it's effort that's the one used. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.