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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

Neutrality

This article does not seem vary neutral. It sounds like it's biased towards GE. Play up the advantages of the new locomotive technology, not how its better than an F40. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.168.6.143 (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also it fails to mention the many flaws and problems these units have been havening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.250.64.193 (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how does the integrated four sectioned fuel tank cause the train to use 22% less fuel for 25% more output? The way the article was worded, it makes it appear as though that is the sole reason for the efficiency increase. Pavanb500 (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Every picture with a Commons-compatible license was moved to the Commons. The only picture remaining is not Commons-compliant. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 06:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unique

How many times is it possible to use the word unique in an article? Something cannot be most unique, uniqueness is a bi-polar state, its either unique or not! Talltim (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not So Unique

"In addition, all Genesis locomotives are four-stroke engines instead of the two-stroke engines previously used in EMD counterparts."

And the point is...what?

All GE locomotives, dating back to the ALCO/GE "clankers" built in the 1940s (which didn't have turbochargers, in many cases), have been powered by four stroke engines. If the writer's intention was to suggest that being four stroke powered gives the GE units a fuel economy advantage s/he needs to provide data to support that claim. GE claims their 12 cylinder engine uses two percent less fuel on average than the 16 cylinder model it replaced. That's only comparing one GE design to another, not to the two stroke EMD design.

In any case, for the same size and weight, a two stroke engine will produce considerably more power. Although weight is good in a locomotive up to a point, better the weight be in structure and trucks, which helps to lower the center of gravity and give the unit better riding qualities at high speed. Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not So Unique, Part II

"The Genesis series are unique among North American diesel-electric locomotives because of their height. It is less than almost all other locomotives that Amtrak used."

No, they are not unique due to their height. If they were, they would be lower than the E and F units, eh?

What is unique about the GE units is their inefficient cooling systems, which represent more than a little parasitic loss. Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, they are lower to the rail than E-units and F-units. IIRC, even the FL9 measured 14' 10" above rail; this may be one reason why NJDOT didn't look to them back in 1967 for the CNJ when the Aldene Plan was instituted, or why Penn Central didn't use them on trains westbound from New York Penn Station, not wanting to risk operating them through the North River Tunnels without expensive modification.

71.241.70.24 (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new model?

P42AC in developement? Is this true? Fan Railer (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates, Citation

I have added the cleanup-confusing tag to the section of the article under question. I have also added 2 other templates identifying few of the specific issues that have been brought up in this talk page. After reading the article cited from a website on US patent 5535680. The article refers to the monocoque carbody. Logically I have moved the related footnote from the sentence it was assigned to to a more closely related area of the section.

--Rent A Troop (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone had a field day removing the tags, which appear to be mentioned here. Added four tags to the head of the article. Very poorly written, overall: lots of missing detail, contains "railfan" pseudojargon and grammar that is overly prosaic, e.g. "run off third rail"; also inaccurate and excessive comparisons to the predecessor locomotive incorrectly identified as the "F40" (it's actually the F40PH and/or F40PHM); also, no dates of production or when the locomotives entered service on the various roads they operate on, whether Amtrak, Metro-North, VIA Rail or even NJ Transit.

71.241.70.24 (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main article photograph

Instead of continuing an edit war, lets get everyone's opinion. The main article photograph was changed without discussion. I believe the one that was in there

is better than the newest one

because more of the locomotive is in the picture. In the newer photograph, the locomotive is further away and shows a whole train, which is not the subject of this article. Also, the direction of movement at the moment of capturing the photograph is irrelevant to deciding which photo is better. I took neither photograph, so my only concern is to get the best one to represent the subject of the article. The photographer was the first person to make an edit without discussion. The most recent editor may be a sock puppet of the photographer himself. I will revert to original photograph if there are no objections posted. Highspeed (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the article to the second, which I had not originally put in the article, because the reversion was done without comment, and I wanted to prompt discussion. As for the value of the two photos, I prefer the second as a matter of composition. The difference in the size of the locomotive in the two images is pretty close, but the newer image gives a better sense of scale with the inclusion of the coaches and limited background and centers the loco better. And, yes, shows the engine in pull mode, which means the engine's headlight is lit as opposed to the red marker lights. This is widely considered a better composition in rail photography circles. So, overall, given the choice, I prefer the second picture.oknazevad (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Oknazevad's choice, its simply a better photo. Furthermore, the vague, unwarranted, accusations of sockpuppetry are not "in good faith". Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on the qualities the lead photograph in an encyclopedic entry on a locomotive should have. You believe it should be a well-composed picture of a train, and I believe it should show the most detail possible of the locomotive itself. The sockpuppetry accusation was simply the result that I had found it hard to believe that anyone besides the photographer who made the first edit without any attempt to reach consensus first, would agree that it was a better representation of P32 Genesis, unless the motivator was a misplaced sense of ownership. In regards to good faith, changing the lead photo without any discussion was not an edit performed in good faith. Highspeed (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Information needs Correction, and more Explanation

Surely if the Genesis locomotive is "22 percent more fuel efficient" then that cannot possibly be because of the design of the fuel tank, but because the prime mover (the locomotive's diesel motor) is much more fuel efficient than that of the old EMD F40PH. Please correct this. Next, if a reader is not a rail fan, he won't know what 'HEP' means. I suggest that 'HEP' be explained - it means 'Head End Power,' a system where lighting, heating and air-conditioning power throughout the train is provided from the locomotive, from the locomotive's generator, and fed to passenger cars by wiring running from the locomotive to all the cars . Third, I would suggest that the article mention that the 'trucks' (or 'bogies,' in European usage) of Genesis locomotives are made by Krupps Verkehrstechnik in Germany, now absorbed into Siemens. I have edited some of these changes into the article. I welcome any further editing to improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prospero10 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that is inaccurate is calling the units "lighter ... than (their) predecessors", citing the attribute of the monocoque body. All models of Genesis are heavier than the F40PH. The P32AC-DM is a great deal heavier than the FL9, as well. Perhaps the advantages (perceived) of fuel conservation and higher weight per axle (the latter presumably offering better rail adhesion) might be offset in the long run by the need for increased track maintenance.

71.241.70.24 (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hostler's stand removed from P40DC

It is my understanding that the hostler's stand was removed from the P40DC. I can only find information about this on a bulletin board, however (at railroad.net). Does anyone have a more authoritative source that can confirm or deny this? 66.234.218.146 (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]