Talk:Locomotive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Trains Portal
Sel week 42, 2006
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
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Top This article has been rated as top-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of the Locomotives task force.

I am beginning to wonder if we should split out the different types of locomotive into seperate Steam Locomotive, Diesel Locomotive, etc. pages. --Morven 11:06, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That might be a good idea if we left a paragraph or so, of information about the locomotive types on the locomotive page, but had links to their own articles which went into much more detail, but it would only be worth while if the split off articles had a lot more information. G-Man 11:10, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

sounds like a good idea. Like G-man says, leave an overview here and then specialise in further articles. -- Tarquin 12:00, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
the current combined page creates deficiencies. i was looking for more in-depth information about Steam Locomotives. Zzorse 15:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm also increasingly of the opinion that there's a lot of stuff here that should be in the train or railway or whatever articles. I'll be thinking about refactoring over the next whatever.

--Morven 07:19, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] This article needs some serious cleaning up

This barely conforms to wikipedia standards considering it's such an important article. Surely it should be a basic description of what a locomotive is, and then there should be links to the history of the locomotive, the diesel locomotive, the steam locomotive, and so forth.

What gets me is saying that "the first successful locomotives" were built by Richard Trevithick, as if to say there were locomotives that preceded his. But to my knowledge he invented the first locomotive period. This downplaying of the genius of one of the Cornish heroes is disgusting, and I demand that it be rephrased unless significant evidence can be brought forth that proves that there were unsuccessful locomotives before his. --Badharlick 22:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale of diesel-electric locomotives

One sentence reads: "In effect, such a locomotive is an electric locomotive which carries its own generating station along with it."

In a diesel locomotive, the traction generator and the traction motors act as an electrical transmission. In starting the train and at low speeds, the motors and the generator operate at low voltage but high current. High current translates into high torque. As the train accelerates, the operating current decreases, but the voltage increases. In this way, the locomotive is steadily shifting gears, by infinitesimal increments. There may be a certain speed where the motors are switched from series to parallel, making higher voltage at lower current available to the individual motors. Still, the basic shifting of gears occurs by a silent change in the voltage being generated.

This description is fairly complete for older locomotive designs, as when I worked in a locomotive factory in 1971-1974. Now there may be computerized controls and AC induction motors for traction, but the same idea will still hold: high current for high torque at low speeds, higher voltage but lower current at higher speeds. The total power = voltage*current and it must stay within the power available from the engine, and the generator rating.

The traditional electric locomotive has quite a different control system because it must work from a (more or less) constant voltage source, relying more on resistors to limit the motor voltage. With more electronic control involved, it is possible that the electric locomotive and the diesel-electric are somewhat more alike.

I quite agree. This article is fairly poor, but is unfortunately a large topic and therefore a bit tough to improve. I plan to break out the mass of diesel locomotive information to a diesel locomotive article at some point.
I note with your last point: it depends on the electric locomotive. A DC locomotive traditionally worked as you describe, and so probably did the AC synchronous-motored version (the ones capable of only a certain set of fixed speeds). The situation with an AC tap-changer locomotive (like a GG1) or a rectifier locomotive is a bit different. I know the GG1's controller notches specified different taps on the transformer, which gave different voltages. The motors were universal motors (brush-equipped). —Morven 14:02, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coal

The steam section talks about coal resource exhaustion "especially in Europe". This is wrong to say the least. Most of Europe still has coal coming out of its ears but diesel is still (for the moment) vastly cheaper

I agree. In fact the text used to strongly imply that steam ended because the coal ran out, which is clearly not the case. Coal is still plentiful in Europe, North America and China, which hasn't stopped the move to internal combustion and electric traction. Indeed, the end of steam was the (partial) cause of the end of the coal industry in some countries, not the other way around.

I've made some edits to reflect this, but more are needed. Gwernol 20:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It would perhaps be better to explain in terms of efficiency and also time to start which is a very big issue and I suspect (but don't have references) for being one of the big reasons diesel shunters took off early on. 81.2.110.250 22:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Time to start is a big one for the switcher, especially.

I'm going to write a Dieselisation article soon to explain the issues. Essentially, labor costs in the developed world are a big part of it - the diesel locomotive is much less labor-intensive. Increased resource utilisation - diesel locomotives require much less maintenance time per hour of use. Reduction in the skill required for operation. Cleanliness - if steam locomotives were still operating in the developed world, imagine the environmental issues. Water supply issues - the steam locomotive's thirst was a problem (especially in desert areas, e.g. American West). Antiquity of the existing steam locomotive fleet - US and Europe steam fleets were mostly pre-1945. And the perceived modernity of new forms of traction - a desire not to seem backward is behind most dieselisation in poorer countries. —Morven 23:05, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Morven, I'd like to see that article: it would be a great addition. The labor-intensive nature of steam was a major reason for the switch to diesel. Another is the instant availability of diesel locomotives. You can switch one on and its ready to haul a train essentially immediately. A large steam locomotive can take 8-10 hours to prepare from cold. Many standard gauge steam locos were kept in full or partial steam overnight to overcome this, which of course meant that the locos weren't available for maintenance and were more costly in terms of fuel and the need for nightwatchmen to ensure safety.

In the UK at least, the passage of the Clean Air Act in the early 1950's (I think) was a major spur to the abandonment of steam. The infamous London smogs of the 1930's and 40's were mainly caused by the emissions from coal fires in private homes, but steam locomotives also contributed and were limited by the legislation. My mother recalls the winter before the Clean Air Act when 50,000 Londoners were said to have died from the foul combination of coal dust and fog in the air. Gwernol

[edit] Diesel Speed Record

This record is now held by the Spanish. 256.38 km/h (160 mph) Spain, Talgo XXI, 12 June 2002.

[edit] Steam-powered locomotives in China.

The last steam engine ceased operating in China on December 9th, 2005. You can look this up in Xinhua.

Hehehe, I know boothbay maine USA has at least one still going, if only in circles. Way to go states! --Rektide 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Book list

Is this the proper place for such a long list of mostly old, unavailable books? --Janke | Talk 17:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technical aspects

I was glad to see an animated picture on this page to explain the wheel linkages, but it would also be nice to have an image explaining the relationship between the burner and the boiler, as it is not at all clear from photos of the locomotives how heat is transferred to the whole of the boiler area. Anybody with images (or the skill to create those images)? Spiggot 21:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


In the Diesel-Electric section, you see this quote...

"It has been found impractical to build a gearbox which can cope with a power output of more than 400 horsepower (300 kW) without breaking, despite a number of attempts to do so."

This, as worded here, is erroneous. Helicopters are mass-produced, and their transmissions are designed to handle thousands of horsepower.

[edit] Editing

I guess nobody is changing the article, despite the numerous suggestions, due to neglect.

Well, the last edit was 10 hours before your comment, which doesn't seem like that much neglect. If you'd like to make some of the suggested changes, then please be bold and go ahead and do them yourself. Wikipedia works when everyone pitches in and make changes. Good luck, Gwernol 02:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Errors in the valve gear animation

The animated gif was originally added to this article by me, and now it's up for promotion on WP:FPC. However, there are some errors in the animation, as I point out here - anybody cares to comment, or replace the image with this one? (My only dislike for that one is the prominent signature...) --Janke | Talk 22:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • No comments, so I went ahead and replaced it. --Janke | Talk 07:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is mag lev a locomotive ?

mag lev vehicles have no motion provideing components in them they can only move useing specialised track which has as much components provideing motive power as the vehicle --Oxyman42

My opinion, for what its worth, is that MagLev vehicles (or sets of vehicles) are Trains, but they do not have a locomotive for the reason you outline above. Gwernol 01:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World speed record for diesel traction

>The HST holds the world speed record for diesel traction

The russian have a diesel locomotive that did 273km/h. http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/ru/diesel/misc/tep80_sherbinka.jpg 213.178.107.244 19:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question. I've found a better reference for this claim at [1] which mentions the 273 kph (147 mph) for the Russian TEP80 locomotive. However [2] claims the HSt has been measured at 238 kph (149 mph). Does anyone have the definitive answer? Gwernol 02:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steam locomotives split off

I've created a separate article for steam locomotive. Please visit it and give it the help it surely desparately needs. Most of all it needs a British/European perspective. Mangoe 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also performed a major upgrade to electric locomotive. Please visit it and correct it as needed. Mangoe 21:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead photographs

I'm wondering if the two photos at the head of the article should be replaced. I having an IC loco and a steam loco next to the opening paragraph. However both of the current photos have issues. The Alco photo has a MoW truck obscuring part of the loco and the caption has redlinks. The GWR Grange has part of its tender cut off and is a little washed out. Am I being to picky, or is it worth looking for better photos for the lead? I think the current ones can be reused elsewhere in this article or in the appropriate sub-article. Gwernol 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm disappointed with the quality of the photography in this article in general. I think that I'd like images that show the differences more clearly, generally 3/4s or builder's shots where the mechanism is better shown (and a panto-up photo for the eletric loco shot). It would be nice for the lead photo(s) to be more clearly pulling a train. I think what I'm going to do for starters is get rid of a few of the superfluous photos, and we can discuss here the best photos we have for each slot. Mangoe 21:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I've gone though an changed the images around - what do people think? Wongm (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting out diesel locomotive

I think it's about time we put the diesels in their own article. I'm going to try that tonight, and I'm going to (initially) make it all one big diesel locomotive article because I think it's going to be hard to talk about some aspects without ignoring the various transmission varieties. I think we're going to have to deal with multiple unit operation in a separate article. Mangoe 18:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Gwernol 19:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversialist statements

This article is more or less totally lacking in references. It was probably not so bad when the statements were mostly "common knowledge", but now we have someone claiming that "However the quality of the electricity produced during [regenerative] braking is usually too poor to be of much importance." We need a citation for that. Mangoe 12:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need references. "Common knowledge" is never a good reason for adding information to Wikipedia. The section about regenerative braking was clear original research and I've removed it, along with a lot of other specious argument from the electric locomotive section. Good catch. Gwernol 13:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Brunel?

I've removed the the reference to Isambard Kingdom Brunel because as far as I can tell his importance to railroading lies in civil engineering and not locomotive design. Please do not restore the passage without amplifying it with discription of a specific contribution. Mangoe 13:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References and the electric loco issue

I took out a reference on the benefits of electrification from an advocacy site. This article needs real references, but not like that. It's clear that we are going to have to get together a set of references on electrification and compose them into something more sophisticated than the "more costly!" and "runs great!" stuff we are getting now. Mangoe 10:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't need a precise reference to claim that a modern electric locomotive has lower operational cost than a diesel-electric one. If one consider the rail system as a whole, once paid-off the initial cost of electrification, diesel-electrics are not a match at all. Not to speak steam ones!!! Ciao!! --Attilios 10:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You say that, but it has not unambiguously been borne out in American practice. A statement from a light rail advocacy group simply isn't acceptable documentation for this claim. It is possible that something like this statement is true, though the fact that essentially no freight traffic travels under electrification in the USA tends to qualify it at best and refute it at worst. Come up with a plausibly neutral reference and we can talk. Mangoe 13:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
And German, French, Italian, Swiss, countries where rail techonology is by far superior, are a bunch of idiots, then? Don't know exactly the US situation, but you cannot advocate a particular situation to support a thesis. If what you say was true, then, at least for goods transit, European railways would choose DE locos even if their lines are electrified, don't you think?

In general, I considered simply the following reasonement, based on elementary thermodynamics and engineering reasons:

  • efficience of a diesel-electric engine: no more than 30%, sometimes around 0.2 even. I've no procise data for railway engines, but never read of superior values (remember there are also thermodynamics principles bounding efficience of any thermical machine).
  • efficience of the electric system: industrial current production eff.* transmission eff. * electric engine eff. Reasonable values are 50% * 85% * 85% = something around 0.3/0.35, approx. to a lower esteem. I'm talking of the simply count of energy bought (as fuel) divided by energy obtained. And this of course does not take account of the economical cost of distribution of the fuel to locomotives (far larger and complicate, and with more intermediate costs I think, than that of electric energy), and the general higher mantainance costs (not to speak of lower life) of diesel power plants. And not even mentioning all the undeniable power/ton, acceleration, comfort, highest speed, etc. advantages of el. locos: don't you think those should have a role in evaluating the operative benefits of a transport system? Of course, I'm speaking of locomotives and rail systems of supposedly same evolution, electronics apparatus etc. If one has studied a little bit of machines will consider obvious the advantages of electric engines and transmission over diesel ones (I don't even want to consider steam ones...), once you've balanced the initial cost of electrification. Of course, if for inner economical politics reasons US pay fuel 50% less than European countries (but have to invade Kuwait and Iraq in exchange), this cannot mean that diesel engines ARE more economically efficient everywhere. You'd also pay 50% less the electric energy to distribute to el. locos. Let me know and good work!!! --Attilios 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This is original research and cannot be used to justify an addition to Wikipedia. You need to cite a reliable source for this. Gwernol 14:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we should differentiate obvious from deep researches. Do I need to cite sources if I count by myself the pages of Divine Comedy are less than War and Peace and say one is longer than another? Can you call a single multiplication with three factors an "original research"? Or I must cite all the 10 books I've studied about electric engines, diesel engines and electricity transmission? Sometimes this mania of citationism at all cost is really boring and going again what is under everybody's eyes. Let me know!!! --Attilios 15:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It may be "boring" but its an essential part of building an encyclopedia rather than just another MySpace.com. You may believe this is an "obvious" conclusion but it clearly isn't the case that every railway system believes electrification is the best option in all cases. I don't agree with your reasoning above, I believe the situation is far more complex than you are representing it. For example you are ignoring the cost of electrification which is substantial, even when amortized over a long time. That's exactly why we require that you use reliable sources instead of doing your own original research. The short answer is you need to find a reliable, unbiased source that has made the claim you want to insert. These sources are for the conclusion you want to draw, not for the primary sources for the data you want. Gwernol 15:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I can agree with you that my reasoning was superficial; I'm not an expert in such a depth of the field to cite precise technical data. But, however, I feel it's far more reasonable than the previous thesis' one, which simply based on: "in the US is in this way, so it must be such everywhere". Of course the electrification cost was not mentioned: I thought it was obvious that the initial cost has been alreayd absorbed in countries using it. However, the fact that almost all NEW railways are electrified should make you think. I think the matter is both of culture and state-of-the-art in techonology: if you ALREADY HAVE electrification, el. locos are what you need. If you don't have it, and don't want to spend for infrastructure, of course DE locos are a solution. Given this, even if (per absurd) operative costs were the same, would you prefer to carry your goods home at 200km/h with an el. loco or at 120 with a DE? --Attilios 15:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Your impulses as to what is reasonable and not are immaterial, and as long as you insist on acting on them, there is going to be someone reverting your edits as original research. I agree that the original version was a little too US-biased, but within that context, it was accurate. The solution therefore was to put in material about other parts of the world (remembering that the situation in Europe is likely not like that in China). And if you had done that, most likely even unsourced changes would have gone unchallenged (at least by me) if they weren't completely off the wall.
The claim that "almost all NEW railways are electrified" cries out for sourcing; my plausibility alarms go off immediately. Surely statistics should be obtainable for this, but when I look around in Google for new line construction I see projects in Central Asia which either are not identified as electrified, or are readily seen to be NOT electrified. Mangoe 16:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
If someone objects, then it is ipso facto not obvious. The burden of evidence lies on someone who wishes to advance a particular position. In this case there is a clear difference. Of course it is an international encyclopedia, but Europe is a smaller part of the world than is North America; it is as wrong to extrapolate from one as from the other.
I've revised the article to limit some of the statements to NA practice; therefore the European picture needs to be filled in. If you have books to which you can refer, by all means do so. That site that you keep trying to use, however, is not acceptable. And I think you need to set aside your theories about who is advanced and who is not. Mangoe 15:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US bias

I cite this part of the previous section I didn't notice at the moment, coming from an user that forgot to sign:

“ Europe is a smaller part of the world than is North America ”

I think:

  1. It is clearly wrong from any point of view (surface, population, etc.)
Perhaps you should consult this encyclopedia, which gives Europe a total area of 10.4M km² vs. 24.5M km² for North America. Of course that's cheating somewhat by throwing in Greenland, but since the USA alone is almost as big as Europe (by their measures), Greenland doesn't throw things off that much. Mangoe 22:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. Even if point 1 was not true, Europe is clearly more advanced in most field of train technology and railway development.
I am not going to bother to dispute that, because it is after all just an opinion. I am entirely ready to dispute that therefore European practice-- and I suspect it's not all European practice, but simply selected areas-- determines what everyone except those benighted Americans do. You would need to show that. I looked for articles about new line construction in Asia, and what I found were unelectrified lines. The American experience with electrification is well-documented: absent high density passenger traffic (and therefore government subsidy) it just doesn't pay here. If you want to show that the rest of the world is going to European all-electric route, then cough up some statistics. Heck, at this point I'm not willing to believe that Europe is going that route without statistics. Mangoe 22:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Wanna speak of density of rails per km? Number of inhabitants? Density of service per km? Kms of hig-speed routes? Come on!--Attilios 00:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I've looked at the stats we have in Wikipedia (which do not mention miles of electrification) and one can see readily that the USA far outranks anyone else in ton-miles of freight, and that the density of lines in the heart of Western Europe is quite anomalous. Europe may be "cooler" or "more technologically advanced" (and these are opinions, after all, unworthy of inclusion in the text) but the fact remains that most of the world isn't like Europe.
And anyway, the problems are these: (1) that you don't do anything to improve the statement of the article as regard to the European experience, and that (2) you keep trying to suppress expression of the American experience in this, and then go on to imply that the rest of the world is more like Europe than like North America. Go ahead and say what you want about Europe, minus your expressions of continental pride; but please do not damage the American material in recompense. Mangoe 13:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. Have you ever heard the term "state-of-the-art" in technology?

IMHO, phrases like these show the deep bias of US users, and mostly their lack of openmindness. It seems that US people cannot convince themselves that things in Europe can be far more advanced, sometimes. They cannot believe that they are currently an underdeveloped country as for railways. Until such a mentality will remain imperant here, articles like this one will remain in this poor state. --Attilios 18:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Was this comment here on the discussion page or in the article? In any case, as an American, I can only say that whoever said that is a total idiot. Anyone who knows anything about train transportation knows that the U.S. is in the Dark Ages compared to, not only Europe, but most of the rest of the world in this regard. But the U.S. is full of a lot of ignorant and misinformed people as well. +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've found an appropriate page in the CIA Factbook [3] and will be putting in some real numbers. Mangoe 14:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Freight is king in North America. Whereas most passenger trains operate at a loss (North America) or are subsidized (as in Europe)

No need to ask me which I like best, we have 18-wheelers in North America that haul more than European freight trains. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 15:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will mark bits I think need refs

  • Added "unref=yes" to TrainsWikiProject entry. I'll go through and mark bits that I think are sufficiently important or controversial to need validating with some source (feel free to add/remove citation flags and or citations themselves :-). --AGoon 04:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disadvantages

I have modified the page to include disadvantages of Locomotive's as well as their advantages. The same has been done to the multiple unit page for fairness Dellarb 10:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steam section

  • I intend to move bits about longest running, oldest operating, and speed records to steam loco page, and delete the beautiful animation of the valve gear which is already on the steam loco page and can't really be justified here.
  • The 'see also' entries Articulated locomotive, Autorail, Bank engine, Duplex locomotive, Air brake, Railway brakes, Regenerative (dynamic) brakes, Vacuum brake - seem to either fall into the steam loco specific area or could be 'see also's on each of the pages for the different classes of loco (eg Railway brakes). Are they not too specific to be at this level of the locomotive wikipage hierachy?
  • "Fantasy Job" Programs seem to be out of place, but where else should it go? (and there's a similar paragraph about a Russian thing just deleted from another page).
  • Page needs an eye catching image for the top of the page that represents locomotives, perhaps something invoking their power like a massed assemblage of locos, or locos head to head. Suggestions :-) ?

--AGoon 10:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I note that user 63.245.177.253 changed "The first successful locomotives were built by ..." to "The first successful giant weiner locomotives were built by ...". Is there nothing that someone can do to remove this idiot from Wikipedia ... this identity does seem to have a history of this kind of behaviour to judge from his history of page changes. It really is time for authors on WP to be properly registered. ALECTRIC451 21:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is, but that would change Wikipedia irrevocably from "the encyclopedia that any zit-faced teenager can edit and have equal weight as an expert in the field", something the current cabal in charge isn't likely to countenance. So expect things to get worse, not better. +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruby on Rails

Locomotive is also an OS X program decently popular among Ruby on Rails developers. Disambig? --64.241.69.167 21:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC) (User:AlanH not signed in)


[edit] distribution

what about distributions of the different drive types? i presume diesel electric is still the most common, but i'd expect gas-turbine would be getting closer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rektide (talk • contribs)

I'm not to sure about diesel-electric being the most common one. In europe all-electric locomotives rule the main lines (along with EMU). And gas-turbine-electric is not fuel-efficient enough to compete with diesel engines when weight not is an issue. The only modern one I heard of is the jettrain. Ssteinberger 21:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] locomotion / locomotive

dunno the true origins of these words. both are used in french and english. who coined locomotive? Cliché Online 15:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section 7: "Fantasy job" programs should be removed

This one sentence section contain little useful information and no links or refrence, so in my opinion is written at discretion. If there is no objection, I'll remove or merge it with other sections. Also, I suppose special-purpose locomotive should be included in section: Classification by use. So I did a merge. User:Dale Zhong 16:22, 6 July 2007 (GMT+0800)

[edit] Cabins?

There is nothing at all in this article (or, as far as I know, in the entire Wikipedia) about the engineer's cabin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L.K (talk • contribs) 23:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

This

deserves a place in an article, but I can't see which it matches best, as there's no article I can see about locomotive workshops. Cheers, Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Railway workshops is a topic that really needs an article. I have a feeling it would turn into a huge mess of various examples from various countries that people would throw in. Is there a book on the subject for some content? Wongm (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)