Talk:New Zealand DF class locomotive (1979)

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in New Zealand / Locomotives Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	2007-08-21

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

Low

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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject New Zealand Railways (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

This article lacks references.

DFB and DFM

Hey folks, I just updated the article to reflect the DFB and DFM subclasses of the DFT that Toll has introduced lately. However, I don't actually know many specifics, so if someone else can flesh out the article a bit more, that would be great. Some information simply on when the DFB and DFM designations were introduced and what they denote would be ideal. - Axver 06:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Flyingtomato.jpg

Image:Flyingtomato.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Replaced license template with more appropriate template, added fair use rationale. Slambo (Speak) 11:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Flyingtomato.jpg

Image:Flyingtomato.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Replaced license template with more appropriate template, added fair use rationale. Slambo (Speak) 11:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Flyingtomato.jpg

Image:Flyingtomato.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Replaced license template with more appropriate template, added fair use rationale. Slambo (Speak) 11:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Flyingtomato.jpg

Image:Flyingtomato.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Replaced license template with more appropriate template, added fair use rationale. Slambo (Speak) 11:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DF 1667

This loco appears to be missing from the class register: NZ Railfan's calendar has a photo of it for July. pcuser42 (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrades renamed and expanded

I have retitled Upgrades to 'Vision Upgrades' to reflect and expanded the paragraph that now include the replacement larger drivers side cab front window and the serious reason for it. AlexCherr72 (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC) ^[1][reply]

References

^ NZ Railfan Magazine/Rails Magazine/NZ Railway Observer

Potential withdrawal

The article says that it is believed that the DFTs will soon be withdrawn once more DLs are in the country. However NZ Railfan, the only source I've seen that says this, says "the likely causalities", indicating they're speculating somewhat. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, this information may then not be suitable for inclusion, so the question is: given the wording of the New Zealand Railfan article, is it an appropriate source in this instance? pcuser42 (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's appropriate, although apparently the June edition confirms this --LJ Holden 09:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the June 2013 issue I'm looking at. pcuser42 (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - sorry I haven't got the most recent edition yet! In that case the sentence should really be re-written to reflect what Railfan actually said - i.e. they're speculating that 17 locomotives are to be withdrawn. FWIW I don't really think it's likely, especially of large numbers of the DC class are withdrawn. --LJ Holden 22:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between "Withdrawn" and "Out of service"

Unless if there's any difference between these 2 terms, does anyone think that these terms are synonymous to each other? I don't see any point in changing the status to a different word as it only reflects to one, same meaning. Can't we just put "Out of service" and explain whether the locomotive is withdrawn from service in the "notes" section? -RTWDestroy (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a different, out of service means waiting a big repair may return to service, withdrawn means written off/never gonna return to service again unlike the D/DM units Robyn (DM 27 and D 163) which were leased by the Canterbury Railway Society after being withdrawn in 1988, returned to service in 2008 until withdrawn again in 2012 and the Phoenix set (DM 216 and D 2687) which were withdrawn in 2001 but return to service in 2008 until 2011 and 3 of the New Zealand EA class locomotive were returned to service in 2008 until 2011 after being withdrawn in 1997 between Otira and Arthurs Pass since 1968. All were returned to service in Wellington. -NZ Rail 150 (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Under overhaul" covers the large repairs where a locomotive is expected to return to service. pcuser42 (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added "/repair" to the overhaul description to cover that scenario as well. I think what NZ Rail 150 is saying above is that there are units which are withdrawn then can re-enter service should be classified as out of service. Personally I think this is a little too much like spitting hairs, and for the sake of consistency across the Wiki article's its best we leave it as is.--LJ Holden 23:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The next engine to be withdrawn soon is DFT 7023. 118.92.241.244 (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)^{[citation needed]}[reply]

And you know this how? NZ Rail 150 (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)NZ Rail 150[reply]

Not a forum... --LJ Holden 08:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland Transport service

I propose removing the AT transport service colour (blue) as per Template talk:NZR locomotive list: This colouring for rolling stock lists is no longer relevant, it was meant to signify diesel classes in exclusive AT service; that requirement no longer exists. --LJ Holden 02:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unimportant details

Can someone explain why a loco being the last in a given livery is important? I keep having to revert edits by an IP to that effect. pcuser42 (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Zealand DF class locomotive (1979). 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/20120426035557/http://www.taic.org.nz/RailReports/tabid/85/ctl/Detail/mid/483/InvNumber/2000-115/Default.aspx to http://www.taic.org.nz/RailReports/tabid/85/ctl/Detail/mid/483/InvNumber/2000-115/Default.aspx

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) 16:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] NZ Railfan Magazine/Rails Magazine/NZ Railway Observer

[1]