Talk:Electric multiple unit

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Electric multiple unit article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Trains: in UK / in Scotland High‑importance

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

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Transport in Scotland (assessed as High-importance).

This article lacks references.

InfoBox

Is it just me, or do others find the infobox a complete waste of space. For instance, under the "Technology" heading, it says "multiple unit train control" ... well what else did you expect under an article on multiple units!!!!! Canterberry 20:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a useful piece of coding that clearly shows the related article. This page has been very neglected, so I'm not moaning. Pickle 23:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We had a problem with MU 'technology' (multiple-unit train control itself being slit between multiple articles. You see it on stand-alone locos, push-pull consists, DMUs and EMUs. We have a lot of overlap between MUs so having the common technology keeps it in one place. Have a squiz at Talk:Diesel_Multiple_Unit and Talk:Multiple_unit for a bit more on the issues we have... Wongm 23:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NJT Picture

I just removed this image from the gallery, since this is not an EMU (note the lack of pantographs and the locomotive at the opposite end). Skabat169 14:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Violation?

"EMUs are also popular on commuter and suburban rail networks around the world due to their fast acceleration, pollution-free operation and quietness. Being quieter than DMU and Locomotive-drawn trains, EMUs can operate later at night and more frequently without disturbing residents living near the railway lines. In addition, tunnel design for EMU trains is simpler as provisions do not need to be made for diesel exhaust fumes."

While I suppose most of the above statements are defensible, I'd like to see a section discussing the disadvantages of EMUs. For example, while tunnel design may not need to take into account removal of exhaust fumes, the power has to be brought to the train somehow--either through overhead wires or third-rail systems, and the electricity has to be generated at some location, possibly leading to pollution at that point, rather than where the energy is used. Also, when either the power system or the vehicles themselves become obsolete, usually the entire EMU has to be taken out of service and replaced (or the service suspended or terminated), while a locomotive-hauled service (even if the locomotive is electric), can simply replace the power vehicle without disrupting the entire service.

I don't know if all of these issues can be discussed within the scope of this article, but some effort should be made to balance the pro-EMU slant that currently seems to exist. 66.234.220.195 (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History

It risks being labeled 'semantic', but I think in the interests of technical accuracy the distinction as what 'EMU' really means and therefore what an EMU really is should be recorded, hence my alteration to this passage. Regarding the Shinkansen, unless one or more entire trainsets were coupled together this sort of train could not be characterised as an EMU. Throttleer (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shikansen is a multiple unit - as it has distributed traction eg see http://ja.wiki.x.io/wiki/%E6%96%B0%E5%B9%B9%E7%B7%9A

eg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INanpZpz5fU http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-81006262.html http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200615/000020061506A0526361.php etc Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery

Are so many images needed - there is a link to commons.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. I usually reckon that a gallery, if needed, should be limited to 8 pictures. There are hundreds available at Commons. This page is ridiculous as there's so little text. This gallery only needs to show one of each distinct types: extra-high speed (eg Shikansen), high-speed (ICE), suburban, suburban double-decker, Underground (not present) and light rail (not present), also could have a UK unit with corridor connection to show different end treatment, plus Eurostar or (better) EuroTunnel train. Article should also show a third-rail power bogie and the lowered roof of a unit fitted with a pantograph, could also show the unused drivers cab of a corridored UK EMU when corridor in use. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A link to a commons category, especially when it's a metacategory, is not the same a well captioned gallery. A Eurostar would be superfluous if you put up an ICE or a TGV. EuroTunnel trains are not multiple units. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The $1000 question is 'can someone write a reasonable article for this page on EMUs' - I certainly know what one looks like now .. ;) , but the article itself is a stub.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Class 450 Waterloo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Class 450 Waterloo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 30 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish high speed S/130 is not an EMU

The picture should be deleted from the examples of EMUs as these trains have two locomotives, one in each end. 17:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.157.29 (talk)

Lack of mention

It strikes me that this article is lacking any mention of LRV (Light Rail Vehicle) which here in America's 2nd oldest in-city transit system is often how proposals to add rolling stock assets to the MBTA's fleet would be referred to in news accounts. Quote from Light rail giving this observation... a certain official impetus:

The term light rail was coined in 1972 by the U.S. Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA; the precursor to the Federal Transit Administration) to describe new streetcar transformations that were taking place in Europe and the United States.

//FrankB 14:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Top-right picture

(Bearing in mind I don't know much about rail) Top right pic shows a locomotive pulling carriages. I thought the whole point of EMU is that it doesn't need a loco at front or rear. If this is correct, maybe another pic?

Expansion to around the world section

This section needs to be expanded Notabluebird (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]