Talk:Adtranz/Archives/2014

Untitled

Was OC Trains really an Adtranz customer? As far as I know their only trains are TALENTs. While the TALENT is a Bombardier product, it has no history at all with Adtranz. Instead it comes from Waggonfabrik Talbot, a different german company Bombardier acquired, some time before they bought Adtranz. Or am I missing something here? 134.130.113.86 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Facilities - request for info

Adtranz : I'm hoping to get a better list of major factories - I find that having both British Rail Class 482 and NSB El 18 (for example) both listed as having the same builder (Adtranz) a little confusing - so I hoping to narrow this down to major contractor level. This is going to be a bit complex as not only are there the rolling stock factories, but also traction component suppliers, signallling equipment manufacturers etc etc (probably too many to mention) - anyway if you have any info (even if unreferenced) please drop it on the Adtranz talk page - all I need is the common name, or the city location of any of the plant to get me started. (currently the only ones that I'm immediatedly aware of are (ex-Henschel) in Kassel, some of the UK ones plus a better knowledge of ABB's electrical facilities.)

So if you know of the names or locations of any of Adtranz's work please list below, thanks. (I'll get round to incorporating or trying to create a separate article if big enough at some later date) Sf5xeplus (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

New facilities: Berlin-Pankow (given off to Stadler after Bombardier acquisition as anti-monopoly condition for the purchase)

Actually, just found an article making clear that construction of the Pankow plant was started by ABB. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Former ABB facilities: Kassel (ex Henschel), (Zurich-)Oerlikon (ex MFO ex BBC, closed by Adtranz at the end of the nineties), Mannheim (ex BBC), Vado Ligure (ex Tecnomasio ex BBC), Berlin-Reinickendorf (ex Waggon-Union, temporarily vacated by Adtranz, now independent as FWM)

Former AEG facilities: Hennigsdorf (ex LEW, originally locomotives), Nuremberg (ex MAN, originally multiple units, sold off/closed by Adtranz just before Bombardier takeover), Donauwörth (ex WUMAG ex MBB)

Acquisitions in Western Europe: (Basle-)Pratteln (ex Schindler)

Acquisitions in the then EU candidate countries: Wrocław/Poland (ex LHB when still part of Germany, ex PAFAWAG, made center for locomotive bodies), Dunakeszi/Hungary (ex state railway coach repar shop, under Adtranz & Bombardier mostly passenger car manufacture/refurbishment)

There were a lot more in other countries (I don't know the ex-Asea works in Scandinavia for example), a number of which were closed by Adtranz in its death throes; the above are off the top of my head. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The only Norwegian work which survived until the Adtranz era was Strømmens Værksted, then called Adtranz Strømmen and located just outside Oslo. In Sweden there was Kalmar Verkstad, which I would presume had the name Adtranz Kalmar, but I'm not positive about that. I'm unsure if there were additional Swedish plants, but I think that was the only ASEA train plant to survive. Both of these were closed during the Bombardier era. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

On Bombardier's Worldwide Presence page, I find that the larger sites have Site Fact Sheets, which include history. They still list Strømmen; and also Västerås/Sweden, which apparently was ASEA's original works. In the UK, not just Derby but trackside equipment center Plymouth shows ABB-Adtranz 'prehistory', as do maintenance centers with fact sheets. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Btw, by "closed", I mean they stopped making rolling stock there, with the NSB Class 73 being the last roll-out in Strømmen. The plant is still there, but is used for maintenance, overhauls and the like. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes thanks, I the Bombardier site info has histories - that will help a lot (except the closed ones) - I also found this in the meantime - http://www.railfaneurope.net/misc/mreil.htm - it's out of date, but that's a good thing - I just need it for the names so I can start searching.

I've probably got enough info to be going on with.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What I haven't got is stuff outside europe - can still check bombardiers site - but to my knowledge there wasn't anything major anyway?Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah something in NA hq- Adtranz Pittsburgh (ex westinghouse) more info on that, also possibly a company in India as well.Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that there was much beyond Europe. The one I can add is Maryborough/Australia, which contributed to trains for Perth. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Market shares

The cited passage in the Commission report focuses on the change in market share from the merger. Thus it doesn't say what the combined ABB+AEG market share was, only that one or both companies had insignificant market share. ABB or AEG had significant market share in all countries in the sentence "The proposed concentration leads to no market share addition in Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Iceland, Portugal and the United Kingdom." ABB core country Switzerland is not mentioned in the report, presumably because it was and is outside the EU (though so is Iceland). Elsewhere in the report, the market shares in Italy are mentioned. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake - I new that ABB had market share outside scandinavia, but somehow my typing fingers didn't get the memo.Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, for the purposes of the rest of the article, let me note that market shares changed over Adtranz's history, especially in the then EU candidate countries. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Brand name...

It wasn't just journalists (as the German version of the article now claims). The company referred to itself by its brand name, so the current lede is too reductionist. --Rontombontom (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct --Pechristener (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I re-edited the lede to again refer to the company, and added to the Brand chapter. --Rontombontom 17:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Is a whole section on the brand name really necessary? I'd probably move down towards the bottom, though I prefered it as a footnote.Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Since it was/is a commonly used name yet not official, what's more the DaimlerChrysler official name gets people confused, I think it does deserve more prominence than a footnote. Methinks it would be best placed as a sub-section of an expanded History section. (I saw similar sub-sections in GA-rated company articles on Wikipedia, but can't remember ones at the moment.) --Rontombontom (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, I made this edit.--Pechristener (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way if the trade mark has expired - can we have copy of the company logo? Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Consult the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons copyright experts :-) --Rontombontom (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can just use a picture of a name plate in the meantime --Pechristener (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this correct [1] - ie was it still called "Adtranz" after ABB sold its shaares? Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but do not ask me for a good reference. --Pechristener (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I just read the company reports - you're rightSf5xeplus (talk)

I changed the lede again. This time I'll quote Manual of Style recommendations on why I edited it in that particular way.

This is an article about the rail equipment manufacturer, not the brand name. In the Wikipedia Manual of Style on article titles, WP:UCN says, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." and again later, The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name. Given that even the company referred to itself as Adtranz on its own homepage, the article title for the rail manufacturer does conform with the MoS.

Moving to the lede, the article title MoS also says, When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph (see Lead section). The referenced WP:MOSBEGIN also says, If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. (the exception is descriptive titles), and further: When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms.

The last version of the lede started with a sentence defining Adranz as a brand name, rather than referring to the company which the article is about. IMHO the above guidelines are best followed by including the inofficial Adtranz name and the two official names in the first sentence which establishes it as a rail equipment manufacturing company, and making a statement about the brand nature of the inofficial name in another sentence. --Rontombontom (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

ok,ok you nailed it with This is an article about the rail equipment manufacturer, not the brand name that is correct- however the current revision contains an unfinished sentence. ... Too many cooks (3) seems to be spoiling the lead - there's too much meta discussion in the current version too. We've got a section on "brand" it just isn't that relavent what it's called - and shouldn't be covered in so much detail in the lead. Would someone fix it - perhaps working from the naive lead version I gave here (from before the lead got edited to death) old version Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

In other words, we need a fourth guy to mess around with it? :-) --Rontombontom (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the hanging sentence. I don't think it's broken now.. so.. hopefully. Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Rolling stock built - needs work

The "rolling stock section" needs a tidy - ie some prose, context, (new or inherited design - builder etc). I'm done for now though obviously if I find out more I'll be back to add it. (and maybe someone would like to add a gallery - 1 tram, 1 people mover, 1 loco, 1 emu, 1 high speed ?) Also post archived merger chart link supplied by rontombontom here (press stop loading button (big X) on browser otherwise it tends to blank after display) (found a reliable source http://web.archive.org/web/20070214092321/http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr41/pdf/f04_sat.pdf - don't know why www.jrtr.net is down) - if anyone can find a way to link to it in the article without the page blanking problem please add it to external links.Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

JRTR is not down, but has some routing/server issues (I asked a Wikipedian in Taiwan and he can still see it). You can archive pages on it with webcitation.org. --Rontombontom (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad JRTR still exists Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, do you plan to gather the non-rolling stock products, too? In that field, I know signalling, refurbishment and maintenance is noteworthy, and there was locomotive leasing too at the end, but I don't know much specifics... and there was surely even more (possibly track too) if they claimed to offer everything from A to Z. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I would if I had any info .. If any turns up I'll add it - I assume signalling and electrication come directly from ASEA, BBC and Westinghouse . I don't even know which bit of Westinghouse they got .. (in the UK they (Westinghouse) were very successful signalling from quite early on eg 1920's, and probably before with railway telegraphs as I remember) They (Adtranz) did railway electrification as well - the sale to Balfour Beatty is mentioned in the article. Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the archived Adtranz merger chart: the reloading problem doesn't come up if you link to the image itself, but I don't think that that would be a proper Wikipedia source. I left a message about the silly redirect at the archive site's blog, maybe they will solve it.

The diagram is obviously the origin of the JRTR version, with some typos (look what MAN/MBB became). --Rontombontom (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Class 101 and Octeon

Perchristener, do you have a source for the Class 101 not being an ancestor of the Octeon platform? The currently used source only writes about latest products for Germany without specifying any class. The Class 101 should definitely be in the picture due to the planned high-power hollow shaft drive version of the Octeon. I also seem to remember that the Adtranz page mentioned the Class 101, will look in the archived versions. --Rontombontom (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Tecnomasio

There as (temporary) categorised redirect from Adtranz Italia to Tecnomasio - however I'm not sure what the proper name is/was.. Also haven't found out if the Milan plant made it into Adtranz - anyone with answers to these or other question please leave a message on the Tecnomasio page. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Article title needs fixing

In all commercial material (as evidenced by the graphic), this company was called 'ADtranz (capitalized D) instead of "Adtranz" with lower-case "d".

71.173.2.51 (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

New messages go at the bottom.

See the old company website http://web.archive.org/web/19961228235320/www.adtranz.com/index.htm - does it use a capital D - no.Mddkpp (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)