This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
More like a GE ad than an Wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.107.112.114 ( talk) 00:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
"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)
P42AC in developement? Is this true? Fan Railer ( talk) 01:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Four of the Metro-North P32AC-DM's, namely Nos.229, 230, 231 and 232 are painted entirely differently from the blue paint scheme shown in the photo: they are painted in the colors of the (former) New Haven Railroad, namely red, black and white. I have photos of the New Haven painted locomotives (I see Metro North trains every day) which I could post, if it's of any interest. Prospero10 ( talk) 15:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
CORRECTION: No, the P32AC-DM which weighs 274,400 lbs is not "a great deal heavier" than the EMD FL9 which weighs 287,000 lbs. The P32AC-DM is lighter, although its axle load is higher on 4 axles than the axle load of the EMD FL9 which has 5 axles. Prospero10 ( talk) 15:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
A few questions to which the answers are unclear from the article (and this talk page), but which I'm sure would be easy for those that know. I guess I saw some of these at Metro-North's 125th Street Station back in 2006, but I'm in Scotland now, so Wikipedia is my friend.
Thanks in advance. Tim PF ( talk) 00:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Amtrak GE Genesis.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 9 April 2012
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.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Amtrak GE Genesis.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 23:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi folks,
the locomotive weight given in the listing in the text seems to be inconsistent with the one given in the table (and frankly also a bit unrealistic - probably a decimal point error):
Text: Weight: 13.300 short tons (11.875 long tons; 12.066 t)
Table: Locomotive weight P40DC, P42DC: 268,240 lb (121,672 kilograms)
greatings, Arne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.11.195.203 ( talk) 13:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
In the Technical Design section, the article states "The GE Genesis series is unique among recently manufactured North American passenger locomotives in that, like the EMD F40PHM-2, it uses a single, monocoque carbody design..." AFAIK, no variants of the F40PH could be considered "monocoque" in the slightest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvJay ( talk • contribs) 05:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of GE Genesis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "PRIIA":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on GE Genesis. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on GE Genesis. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The abbreviation "HEP" is used several times but is neither explained nor wikilinked. 49.145.132.39 ( talk) 07:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Conrailman4122: Please stop re-adding trivial details like the nose hatches - especially when they are not cited using reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a railfan page. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
First of all, I did not add the information, it was already there and modified it a bit. You just get in and revert everything I do. Please stop messing with my edits on every article I modify. (Redacted) Geez Conrailman4122 ( talk) 21:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the nose hatch design difference is probably worth mentioning in a design section, but it needs real sources and we're not sourcing things to Flickr images. Mackensen (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
(Redacted) Keep adding your "sourced" bullshit because what I added was true. The units do have escape hatches but you guys don't want to admit it. The hatches were added to Amtrak units because of their reroute over the summer of 2018. And how do you not see that P32's have escape hatches. What does it look to you, some decoration or something? Are u guys blind? I see these units everyday and this is from visual prescriptive and experience. I don't know why you want some article to support this while you have guys who know how these units run. And Morphinnel if you think I'm socking you have it wrong cause I'm not here to disrupt, I'm here to add what's true, whenever it's from a source or not. Not everything needs a source because it may not be available. Go ask some MNR or Amtrak employee about this. I tried to find a source but not everything is around, it's about those who know and look at info somewhere else. But if you think it's unhelpful, prove me wrong cause I'm done. Pi, you can make all the articles yours all you want cause Wikipeida is now full of "know it alls" now cause I'm done. Never have the freedom to improve so have it your way! Conrailman4122 ( talk) 15:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I clicked through to this article because this unit replaced the LRC's in Canadian service, but after reading a bit I'm a bit mystified why. While this article boasts that the Genesis is one of the shorter locos in service, the LRC is a full 2 feet shorter, making it inline with the carriages, which the Genesis is not. It's also somewhat lighter. The Genesis 42DC models are faster, slightly, but that seems of little interest in Canada where the speeds are limited to well below the listed speed of either loco. Is there something I'm missing here? Why didn't they just order new LRCs with newer engines? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 23:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
This page claims that the Siemens Charger is lower than the GE Genesis, but the Siemens Charger Page claims that the Charger is 14.7 ft (4.48 m) in height vs the Genesis' 14 ft 4 in (4.37 m). Davidng913 ( talk) 11:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)