# Talk:Iore

The article says:

With 14.600 HP, they are reported to be the strongest cargo locomotives in the world.
This only applies if we consider the two parts to be one locomotive. The rest of the article talks about two locomotives operated in pairs, and in that case the above is certainly not true (see SBB-CFF-FFS Re 620). Moreover, there is a difference between power and tractive effort. I would consider "strength" to be about tractive effort, however the above sentence talks about a power figure... I'll fix that. --Kabelleger 22:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

700 kilonewtons = 157366.26 pounds force par google. Somethings up with the wikipedia conversion...
--Chesapeake (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Why was this moved from IORE to Iore? The official designation is IORE with capital letters! See Bombardier Transporation website --Kabelleger (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! The manufacturer's designation is in all capitals, this move should be undone. It's the equivalent of moving the EMD SD40-2 article to Emd Sd40-2. WuhWuzDat 19:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually it looks like the article's title hasn't changed, but IORE was replaced by Iore in the text... --Kabelleger (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Not true, sorry, I got confused by the fact that the old revisions are shown with the new title... --Kabelleger (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#All caps and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). In particular note: 'Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"'. "Iore" is not an acronym for anything, but simply a name. The MOS therefore dictates that lower-case be used. This specifically overrides situations where the manufacturer uses all-caps. Arsenikk (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

@Wuhwuzdat: Note that "EMD SD40-2" consists entirely of an acronym (EMD) and a letter and number code for the model. That is by far the same as in this situation, where "Iore" is a name, not a code or acronym. Arsenikk (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure about the "not an acronym for anything" part. Of course the origins are hard to prove, but it's obvious that IORE is a short form of "iron ore". 
Also, I think that the guidelines are inappropriate in this case, since *everybody* (newspapers, journals) writes IORE in captial letters, unlike the other examples from the guidelines (e.g. a newspaper would write "Kiss", but "IORE"). --Kabelleger (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if "Iore" is short for "iron ore" (which is the only explanation I have come across, although never from a WP:RS), that would still make it a portmanteau, which again should not be capitalized. This is a prime example of why the MOS has this clause, if all-caps is more common in other printed media, it is simply because they follow a different style guideline than WP. No matter how you turn it around, it is incorrect English to write anything except acronyms in all-caps. Arsenikk (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I haven't found any more arguments to write it all-caps, so I guess we'll leave it the way it is. Thanks for the explanation. --Kabelleger (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Adding an alternate stylization in all-caps was a good idea, though. Arsenikk (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Could it be an idea to use the template {{lowercase}} to decapitalize the ‘i’? Eisfbnore (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm too new to Good Article reviews to start one, but some comments here. The article currently says (without sources) that the locos were ordered from Bombardier and are a modification of the TRAXX line. I think this should be corrected and expanded upon: the locomotives were ordered from ADtranz, which was bought by Bombardier only after delivering the first; and the IORE class is only an honorary member of he TRAXX family, being a modification of a predecessor of the TRAXX line. (I can dig up some sources in German, one in English is Railcolor.) In the Operation section, it would be good to include changes in operation, problems, and resulting modifications, if there were any. In addition, somewhere in the article, there should be a reference to the Chinese loco derived from this type, the HXD3B. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I corrected the Bombardier-retouched ADtranz/Octeon history (Bombardier plays 1984...), and added some more details from the sources.
I left in a sentence about the TRAXX H80 AC designation, but I am not entirely happy with it: while that designation obviously alludes to our heavy-haul 80 km/h AC loco, the Bombardier page only gives it as one of the examples for the TRAXX type designation system; I couldn't find a single reliable source (either on the current web or on archived Bombardier pages) making the explicit connection between "TRAXX H80 AC" and Iore. Maybe this is best dropped entirely?
Regarding operation: in one of the German articles I cite in my edits, they write that during the tests with the first twin unit, the one problem encountered was the re-freezing of snow melted by the wheel tread brakes and the resulting reduction of brake performance; and write (in June 2001) that the solution is still being sought by ADtranz and MTAB. If this problem persisted, it deserves a mention in the Operation section of the article, and I'm sure it surfaced in some Norwegian sources (but I don't speak Norwegian to look for it). I also wonder whether the locomotive had any slip problems, given its individual bogie control (which means the potential for loss of traction on three axles at the same time).
I also added the HXD3B reference, to the Specifications section, it would probably be best placed in a See also section, but the English Wikipedia article hasn't been created yet.
I added a  tag at one location where the article says "Currently", and the claim is not properly sourced (it assumes 2x4 locos of the second batch have been delivered "currently"). Also, the sentence is probably better placed in the Operation section.
Some further potential improvements of the article. First, even though Bombardier publications refer to the loco as IORE, IORE is inscribed on the locos, so I take it is an MTAB/Malmtrafik name, rather than an ADtranz/Bombardier one - so shouldn't the infobox correctly say "Malmtrafik IORE"? Second, there are a lot more technical details in the cited sources than displayed in the infobox at present; was there a reason to add them sparingly into the infobox? Third, giving the precise locomotive dimensions in metric in meters rather than millimetres contravenes common usage in publications (including the source document), and I don't think such non-standard usage is a Wikipedia MoS requirement.
I would contact the reviewer who made the article a GA to also review my changes after I get a reply to the above from other editors. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
In fact, the WikiProject Trains MoS naming guide says "Articles about a specific class of equipment used by a specific railroad company should be named with the most common company and class names (such as PRR K4s)". So I already changed the infobox, and propose to follow the guideline by moving the article to "MTAB Iore", too. --Rontombontom (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
First, thanks for adding the German references, I was having a hard time finding good references for the early period. Feel free to add German-language references, even if they are offline.I've fixed the "currently issue" (don't know if it was me or not who added it, I have the word "currently" on my self-imposed black-list of Wikipedia-unfriendly words). Regarding the MOS you mention, it is just an essay and simply represents the personal opinion of one or a few editors. There is no consensus behind it, and should be more or less ignored (some of the information on the page is out of date, some is fine). Regarding the name, I have seen both "Bombardier Iore" and "MTAB Iore" and "Malmtrafik Iore". Because of the ambiguity of the naming, I find that just "Iore" is the best solution. Also, most sources refer to it by that name alone, perhaps with "Bombardier Iore" as the second-most common. It is generally not necessary to re-GAN an article, unless it has been completely rewritten, which is not the case here. Simply having two people do a simple copyedit (mostly of typos etc.) is more than sufficient. Thanks for helping making the article better :) Arsenikk (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
6+20 was with the second batch, so I further edited it, and moved it to the operation section. By the way, can you help out a bit here? --Rontombontom (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
About the naming: I just found that in the Bombardier press release about the order for the HXD3B, they call it "Bombardier Kiruna"... --Rontombontom (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I have now expanded the Infobox with all the available data, and moved the HXD3B reference to the added See also section after I created the corresponding article. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Iore/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Looks fine. I did a light copyedit, and saw nothing else that would hold up GA status. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time for the review :) Arsenikk (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I commented out the recent unsourced edit that said 600 kN is the continuous tractive effort and 700 kN is a short-term TE, and request a clarification and a source. According to the Bombardier data sheet on the locomotive (cited in the article), 600 kN is the starting TE, so a continuous TE equal to that and a short-time one that's even higher seems unlikely. (a possible explanation is a change in the axleload.)
Also, I wonder if the two sources in the recent edit adding single section operation are good enough for Wikipedia. The first one links to a personal homepage, generally frowned upon in WP:SPS, however, I think it is covered under "...produced by an established expert on the topic of the article..." The other link goes to a photo album -- I'm not sure about that, I have been told before that images aren't acceptable as source, but I haven't found a specific MoS policy against them. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the 700 kN, ref 30 (Stiberg) mentions this, stating [translated from Norwegian, and referring to a twin unit]: "In addition, the loco has a boost function, if one should get stuck you can take off with 1400 kN". Arsenikk (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Added! --Rontombontom (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the photo album link, I asked at WP:RS. Although I'm not entirely happy with the depth of the replies I got before the question got archived, it does seem that if nothing else, the use of that particular image from that particular site as evidence for single operation would be widely considered WP:OR, so I removed it. --Rontombontom (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a sentence about the type of the converters (Camilla family of water-cooled GTO converters). IMHO this is a significant detail, because Adtranz's locomotives for Germany and the later TRAXX 1 locomotives made in Kassel used a different, ester-cooled GTO converter, originally developed by the German branch of ABB. I gave the FS Class E464 as example for earlier use because the source has some details on the Camilla and the Octeon platform; other vehicles with Camilla I'm aware of were the FS Class E412, SBB-CFF-FFS RABDe 500, and the AVE Class 102 (I think). --Rontombontom (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There's some information about the underframe in this article http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/powerful-freight-locos-take-shape-at-dalian.html - quote The IORE locos have a number of special features for winter operations such as a heavy steel frame protecting the underfloor transformer and steel bars ahead of the leading bogies to prevent blocks of ice or other obstacles from damaging equipment; these are not needed on the Chinese locos. Air filters with roof-level intakes that prevent snow and iron ore dust from reaching the traction compartments are retained to ensure that coal dust cannot penetrate the interior. moved from China HX3B Oranjblud (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Iore. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726105217/http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/27/china_erste_bombardier_lokomotive_ausgeliefert.html to http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/27/china_erste_bombardier_lokomotive_ausgeliefert.html
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) 14:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)