Diskussion:Aktiengesellschaft für Lokomotivbau Hohenzollern

Lage

Wo lag das Werk? (nicht signierter Beitrag von 178.6.114.29 (Diskussion) 23:50, 7. Nov. 2016 (CET))

Einzigartigen Spurweiten

Verzeihung fur die sprache, I better write in English.

The English article, :en:Hohenzollern Locomotive Works, says Hohenzollern build locomotives with track gauges (Spurweiten) 780 mm and 840 mm. I want to ask if someone can check in the sources (books or website) whether these gauges indeed were build.

Background: we at enwiki maintain a list of all defined track gauges (it has 241 sizes now). When a gauge is well-sourced, it will be added to the list. These two Hohenzollern gauges we have not met before (they are probably unique), and we don't know the sources. So it would be great if someone can confirm them being sourced. Thanks. - DePiep (Diskussion) 14:27, 15. Jul. 2018 (CEST)

Nach in Liste der Spurweiten gibt es die nicht wirklich. Aber es ist durchaus ein Messproblem und/oder Umrechungsproblem. Die Normalspur hat beim Gleis ein Nennmass 1435mm, das genau gleiche Gleis hat aber nach alter SNCF Messart aber ein Nennmass von 1440 mm. --Bobo11 (Diskussion) 13:15, 31. Jul. 2018 (CEST)

look at Seaton Tramway, 838 mm; Bombergbahn, 775 mm --Jo.Fruechtnicht (Diskussion) 13:57, 31. Jul. 2018 (CEST)

In full detail, there is a list of track gauges used at the DGEG's Website under [1]. They list gauges with all known railway lines (both public and industrial/private) and all known built engines and even try to explain the background for unusual gauges, so the list is quite huge. But they have entries for both 780 and 840 mm gauge - and nearly every other millimeter! Of course, one has to keep in mind that especially in the early days of railways, both standards and measuring equipment were not that precise and there were quite a large number of manufacturers which often catered for very special needs, so the question would rather be "was this or that gauge used widely/commercially successful" than "was it used at all"... --Stefan Kunzmann (Diskussion) 18:38, 31. Jul. 2018 (CEST)

Thanks to Stefan Kunzmann, I found the same page. For 780 mm the dgeg page says "The origin of this gauge is hard to explain. The origins are maybe for some Krauss locomotives in Bavaria (Bavarian 2' 8" = 778,3 mm) in another case in Hannover (Hannoverian 2' 8" = 778,9 mm) but not in prussian units." In Germany the Grube Georg-Friedrich (an ore mine near Goslar) had 780 mm gauge for example. For 840 mm: "english 2' 9" = 838,2 mm. Oberbergamt Barsinghausen, fireless locomotives; former 838 mm. F. Nelli & Co., Laveno (steam locomotive, 1881). Java Spoorweg My. (steam locomotive). Industrial plant in Belgium (steam locomotive 1908)". In this journal from 1993 you can find a list of Hohenzollern locomotives with 840 mm gauge, delivered to the Klosterstollen Barsinghausen, including the locomotives mentioned in the Hohenzollern Locomotive Works article at enwiki. --Wdd. (Diskussion) 19:07, 31. Jul. 2018 (CEST)

@Wahldresdner: Could you give the page number (1-31)? Don't know how to search in my new pdf-viewer ;-) -DePiep (Diskussion) 21:32, 4. Aug. 2018 (CEST)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Thanks you all @Bobo11, Jo.Fruechtnicht, Stefan Kunzmann, Wahldresdner:. Most importantly, DGEG and the journal are the reliable sources I was looking for (sources that confirm that these two gauges were actually built, in track or in rolling stock).

This is how enwiki approaches this. We want a source that clearly says that a track gauge was actually ordered by a company or government and that it actually exist or existed. Wide usage (like the metre gauge) or uniqueness is interesting, but not a judgement for inclusion. Just the thing: "Has that gauge evert been built?"

About converting measurements. The enwiki template recognises gauges that are defined in either imperial units (ft, inch), or metics (mm). Other units in the original order (Swedish feet, Hannover Zoll) are to be converted in the article. This implies that the gauge must be entered in out template in one of those two those original units (imperial or metric), as defined. For example, the meter gauge (1000 mm) was never ordered in foot,inch units, so "3 foot 3 3⁄8 inch" is *not* a sourced gauge. (Though enwiki articles do mention the ft,inch<-->mm value as a conversion, because of readership). Of course, standard gauge has been defined (ordered) in bot unit systems, so both 1,435 mm and 4 ft 8 1⁄2 inch are accepted (in our template).

In the end, enwiki wants to have a list of all gauges that exist(ed), with sources.

About precision & measurement. It is irrelevant how precise measurements are or were. This is about the definition of the gauge, so de ordering company orders a single value: "x mm" (or: "y ft z inch"). Both TGV and old freight routes are "1435 mm", but TGV is maintained with much higher precision (less tolertance for real live deviation etc.). However, for the statement "the track gauge is 1435 mm" this is irrelevant. (Unless one wrtites about the maintenance & tolerance issues &tc.).

Ideally we should maintain the value in Hannover Zoll (and add a conversion to mm), but that is a bit far off. (Original value in Hannover Zoll order should be in the article though).

About rounding and conversion: is not part of the defined single value (single length value)! Conversion is a service to our readers, but does not change the original. Rounding: apart from scaled gauges (under ~100 mm), per 1 mm or per 1/32 inch appears acceptable in my experience.

Finally: I am glad to have found these links and the related dewiki articles, so I will visit you wiki more often. Thanks again. Have a nice edit. -DePiep (Diskussion) 21:28, 4. Aug. 2018 (CEST)