# Talk:NSB Di 6

The article claims that the contract was valued at NOK 380 million but the return was given  NOK 485 million - this makes 95million profit for NSB (not to mention more 80 million NOK discount) eg version
Is this a typo? Mddkpp (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, that would be 380 million in 1992-money and 480 million in 1999-money. Secondly, NSB incurred a cost for having non-functioning locomotives for several years, including having to operate expensive Di 3s. So yes, NSB got back more than they paid, but that was just to cover their costs. Arsenikk (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
ok as long as you are sure - I don't know the exchange rates or inflation on NOK. Mddkpp (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm Norwegian, a railfan and an economist, so I'm pretty sure its right. Arsenikk (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you want more technical details in the infobox? I notice the article presents a lot of the info (lenght, height, etc) in prose form and not in the box - which is unusual.Mddkpp (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there is still more work to be done with the article, including the infobox. I stopped where I did last night because I went to bed. All information in an infobox should be repeated in prose format. For locomotives, there will always be details which cannot be explained in the truncated format of the infobox. Feel free to add additional specs in the infobox, just don't remove them from the prose. Otherwise, I'll get around to adding them when I have some more time on my hands. Regards, Arsenikk (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
ok I've added to the infobox - I'll let you do the rest...
Note - Siemens quotes a top speed of 140km/hr for the ME26, whilst others quote 160. (The MaK DE1024 is also 160km/h) - I don't know why this is - it might be a top approved speed for lease use in germany - but that is a guess.Mddkpp (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:NSB Di 6/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mddkpp (talk · contribs) 22:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the article is well written and illustrated with typical images of liveries and trains operated. A number of key technical points need mentioning or clarifying - this only need amount to a small amount of additional text, essentially to disambiguate.

There's an issue about the top speed - one source quotes 140 km/h , others 160km/h - it was previously mentioned as a note in the article diff but was removed. It's not clear why the difference exists - the vehicles have been operated in more than one country - so the two top speeds may apply to each country. Or the may refer to different definitions of top speed, or a typo - I don't know. Needs clarity.
The Norwegian source, NOB and Loks-aus-Kiel (both German) all say 160, so there isn't a national divide. I have also seen a torque diagram that goes to 160, so the locomotives definitively have a maximum speed of 160, even if they may at one point have had an artificial reduction, or Siemens may simply have misinformed. The footnote is still there, but is in the prose rather than the infobox (as far as I'm aware, it is not possible two have to links to the same footnote). Arsenikk (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The article states Several components were to be manufactured by NSB, including the fuel tanks, sandboxes, engine frames, generators and some components for the bogies." - are the "generators" auxilliary generators, as in Engine-generator, or are they Electric generator as the link suggests - if the latter then if AC the usual phrase is Alternator - if DC then "DC generator" can be used to avoid confusion. This needs clarifying.
The source simply says "generator", which is why the confusion arises. The text later refers to the "main generator", which would indicate that NSB built an auxiliary generator.  Arsenikk (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The claim that "the bogies had faults, as they were not strong enough to support the locomotive's weight" also needs clarifying - as written it suggests catastrophic failure - can more be said on this.?
This is an attempt to translate "sporkrefter", which literally means "track forces". Perhaps there is a different and more correct term? Arsenikk (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The locomotives were purchased for passenger use - I am not familiar with NSB practice - does this include head end power (or is this supplied by a second vehicle (eg generator van) - if 'head end power' is supplied this needs describing - ie powered from where, how much watts. etc
Yes, that is what I mean with 'train power supply', although I've changed the wording now. Arsenikk (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Electrical transmission - additional info requested here which depends on the clarification above about the generator
Regarding this and the four points below: there are no publicly available reliable sources with this information. I would love to write more about the techincal specification, but this information is simply just not available. As it stands, the Wikipedia article is the only comprehensive piece of information on the locomotives, everything else published is just fragments. Arsenikk (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
"Transmission is conducted via three-phase gate turn-off thyristor pulse-width modulation inverters with a resilient drive powering the Siemens-built motors" - this sentence is slightly off -  "resilient drive" is a mechanical design it should probably read something like "Siemens built motors driving the wheels via resilient drive" - also very brief description of the "resilient drive" ie does it involve rubber - there are alternatives. A very brief description of the traction motors is needed - ie are they DC or AC etc, where are the mounted (axle, bogie or body)
Suspension system needs clarifying - more specific - what type?
Method of transmitting traction from wheel to body needs mentioning
Type of load supporting structure needs mentioning - ie monocoque, or 'girder type' - are the side panels load bearing?
Also some of the companies mentioed are red-linked - a few are minor and excusable, others are more notable eg  Osthavelländische Eisenbahn, SeeHafen Kiel.Mddkpp (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Red-links should not be an issue at GAN. Arsenikk (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the review, it is much appreciated to have a knowledgeable person look over the article. I've answered the questions and amended the text, although as mentioned, there are no comprehensive sources on the locomotive, making any further dwelling on the specification difficult. Arsenikk (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes "too high track forces" makes much more sense :  http://www.johnsern.com/materiell/di6/di6.html confirms that too
I just found http://www.rail.lu/materiel/nsbdi6.html and http://www.rail.lu/materiel/cflme26.html - www.rail.lu is a long established website and good on history - I don't know how reliable they are on locomotives - it tells that more information on these locomotives was published in EDF Etudes et Documentation Ferroviaires (Eisenbahn - Technik und Betrieb) issues 34,35,36. In fact I found some answers to questions above in the second link - it says that after being rejected by Norway the locomotives were rebuilt in Denmark (do they mean Kiel in Schleswig-Holstein?) - afterwhich the top speed was limited to 140km/h - it also says the traction motors are bogie mounted and gives an image of the "resilient drive" - I think this is de:Hohlwellen-Antrieb#Kardan-Gummiringfederantrieb or very similar - a sort of quill drive - rail.lu calls it a "Kardanhohlwelle" though from the image I don't think it is a true "cardan shaft" as is understood in english - though the overall effect is identical.Mddkpp (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
also mentions a few other minor things such as change in headlight arrangement post NSB - easily confirmed from the images.Mddkpp (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I've added the two rail.lu links and written a little on the background for the CFL lease and the reduction of speed. Thank you for finding the other sources (I had found Johnsern, but it doesn't really say anything the others don't). My German isn't great, so thank you in helping finding German sources. I'm not even going to attempt to translate technical terms. Could I ask you to amend the text according to your comments about the quill drive? Otherwise, the trains were rebuilt by DSB in Copenhagen as there wasn't capacity in Kiel (Næss says so too, this is in the article). I have to go now, but I believe everything except the quill drive issue should be sorted out now. Again, thanks for helping out. Arsenikk (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes ok. I also removed Nord-OsteeBahn from the first list of lessors - the order of the text sort of suggests this is a Dispolok lease list - but the NOB leases came later. I doubt anyone would ever have been seriously mislead by that, but I changed it anyway.
I fixed a few red links - Hoyer Railserv was absorbed in Rail4Chem in 2002 - it never was big enough to be notable - as far as I know it operated a single or maybe two train paths. I have redirected Neuss-Düsseldorfer Häfen to Düsseldorf-Hafen and will either expand that later, or create its own article. RSE Cargo is a new redirect to Rhein-Sieg-Eisenbahn which now mentions it.
I will probably also create HSL Logistics (done)
Regental Bahnbetriebs was already covered in Regentalbahn so I made a redirect. VPS is a potential redirect to Salzgitter AG as a subsidiary but that article needs much more work before that is valid
The companies KEP Logistik, NetLog Netzwerklogistik,  Schneider & Schneider don't turn up much at all on my radar - it's possible that they are not big enough to be notable, and should be de-linked.Mddkpp (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The other companies are definately notable - I have noticed that some people have been slowly completing the german private railway company articles so possibly they will be done at a later date.Mddkpp (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
(outdent) What remains now? I delinked the three you proposed. As noted above, redlinks is not a problem, and to be quite frank I have no interest in creating articles on German private railway companies. WP:REDLINK says it is better to leave links red than create artificially short stubs. Arsenikk (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally I can't see any issues in terms of Wikipedia:Good article criteria. You (certainly) need a third opinion - specifically a non "rail fan" opinion should be necessary so as to see how this article reads for the more normal (non-expert) reader.Mddkpp (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
If it helps, a near literal translation was just passed as GA on the Norwegian Wikipedia with pro votes by eight non-railfans (see here). You are the reviewer and you have to make the decision here. To be a bit frank: I have sent about 50 railway articles through GAN previously, the majority reviewed by non-railfans, and I have gradually learned what they want from railway-related articles, and which I have incorporated into my writing style. This is not a FAC and you, as reviewer, have to make the call. This is about "decent prose" not "excellent" or "brilliant". GA articles are allowed to have shortcomings, but within limits. The review process is a one-man job, and if, as you say, all the criteria are met, then it is a pass. If you feel you need a second opinion, you can mark the nomination as such, but that must be your call, not mine. My advise from someone who has reviewed 250+ articles is that unless there are prose issues left (which is my Achilles heel), you should just pass the article and get it out of the world. Arsenikk (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I have come here after reading the message on the WT:GAN page. How can I help? I am definately not a rail fan and can provide a non-expert second opinion if that is needed. AIRcorn (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify (after message from Arsennik) - I am not formally passing this article simply because I am too much of a "railfan" to give a subjective opinion of whether or not this is a "good article" for the average reader. Please give feedback on the article as an "average reader" and pass/fail, I can assure that I have no issues now with technical content. Thank you.Mddkpp (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Also I am a notoriously bad speller, and poor prose writer, and as I understand it the main author writes in their second language - so a double check of spelling and grammar would be appreciated. Thanks again.Mddkpp (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I think that is perfectly reasonable. In the future if you wish to get a non-expert/prose checker involved you can change the status of the template on the article talk page to "2ndopinion". I will give my opinion on this article below soon. AIRcorn (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


### Aircorns 2nd opinion
Suggest adding a non-breaking space between Di and 6.
Little bit confused in the history section. When was the Di 6 introduced? The Di 6 was in particular needed for freight and passenger trains on the Nordland Line, and to a lesser extent on the Røros Line sentence seems to suggest that they were already there. "In particular" could most likely be removed as it doesn't make the sentence any clearer.
Specs are quite technical, but wikilinks help and it is not bad enough that I can't get the general gist of what is being said
as they had too high track forces. Don't know what this means?
I've created an article on this. Arsenikk (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The issue never reached the courts, after a 5 May 1999 announcement by the companies that they had reached an agreement for the trains to be returned to Siemens, and NOK 485 million be compensated to NSB. This doesn't read right, might be a run-on sentence. Maybe add a semi-colon and slight reword?
There were also changes to the cab walls with internal railings and the toilets were removed. Internal railings added or removed?
Later leasers consist of Cargolink... Consist of? Were they leasing them as a group?
Six units were initially leased to CFL. Should this be "Another six units were..."
The diesel-electric locomotive has a MaK 12-cylinder 12M282 prime mover. Is prime mover another name for an engine?
The units were originally equipped with a galley and toilet for the engineer, and has head end power, allowing it to haul passenger trains in addition to freight trains Does the galley have head end power or the whole unit? I think this needs rewording.
Thanks for the comments, all has been seen to. Arsenikk (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me. In my opinion this qualifies as a Good article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I have marked this as GA, as I too can pass it (can I actually do this - or does an admin need to ??)Mddkpp (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)