Talk:GE Genesis

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

new model?

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

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)

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)

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

original photo

is better than the newest one

most recent edit

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)

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)

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)

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)

Metro-North Paint Schemes ('Livery')

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Single cab and push-pull train usage information, please.

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.

1. Are (all) these locomotives of a single (-ended) cab layout with an optional hostler stand at the other end (note that these are rare in Europe, and pretty much unknown in the UK).
2. They appear to be used on push-pull trains from my recollection at Harlem, and from other comments above, but does that include all usage, including Amtrak's long distance trains?
3. Are they only used in single locomotive push-pull format, or with a locomotive at each end (whether as push-pull or top and tail working)?
4. If single cab versions are used for conventionally hauled trains, are they turned at the terminus or used in back-to-back pairs?

Thanks in advance. Tim PF (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Answers:

1. Yes, they're all single ended.
2. All Metro-North usage is push-pull, but Amtrak typically doesn't. Amtrak normally only uses cab cars on the Keystone and Shuttle routes. The latter is run with Genesis series locomotives, but that's the exception.
3. Rare to use two locomotives in push-pull, usually only if the cab car goes bad. That's true of pretty much all push-pull operations in the US.
4. Amtrak typically turns their locomotives using differing methods depending on where they are. They do use two locomotives on a single train as needed (such as the really long-distance trains such as the Sunset Limited and Empire Builder), but there always nose-to-tail from everything I've ever seen.

Hope that helps.oknazevad (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I now know how to use numbered bullet points in wiki pages, and I've changed my original to check it (probably shouldn't on a talk page, but 'tis done now.

1. So, is there something in the article that implies a single cab, otherwise I'll update the article to explicitly state such. Oh, and I realise that there is one rather obvious single cab locomotive in the UK, namely the British Rail Class 43 (HST) power car used in push-pull mode at either end of an InterCity 125 train, although it never runs on its own.
2. OK, that makes sense, but I'm not sure how to add it into the article, I think it'd need an additional ==Usage== section before the ==Gallery==.
3. Whilst single ended push-pull working is fairly common in the UK and Europe, top and tail working (actually push-pull) as per the InterCity 125 and French TGV is probably more common.
4. The pair of Amtrak P42DCs leading the Coast Starlight Train 11 into San Jose in a YouTube video (the link having been recently added and reverted) clearly shows them running back-to-back. So, perhaps it varies, but where double-heading without convenient turning is required, back-to-back makes more sense.

Oh, and I think that the two General Specifications sub-sections should probably be drop down a level. Tim PF (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I think there's already fairly obvious thing in the article that the Genesis series is single cab: all the pictures, including the lead one. ;-).

As for the rest, a "usage" section does sound, well, useful. I wouldn't bother with making a big deal out of the form of double-heading; it likely changes depending on the particular route or even the particular day. A laundry list of which routes are head-to-tail and which are back-to-back would fall under the realm of unencyclopedic detail. oknazevad (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that any of the photos clearly show that they have a single cab. The only side-on photo (Toronto) shows that it's not so streamlined at the other end, but then again, neither is the British Rail Class 91, which does have a full cab at its flat end.

I agree with the rest. Keep up the good work. Tim PF (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Amtrak GE Genesis.png Nominated for Deletion

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 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. 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)

Locomotive (P42DC) weight

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)

Since when was there a monocoque F40PH?

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)

Orphaned references in GE Genesis

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":

• From California Car (railcar): "Bi-Level Passenger Rail Cars Standardized Technical Specification" (PDF). PRIIA 305 Next-Generation Equipment Committee. pp. 30–33. Retrieved 20 July 2013.
• From Siemens Charger: "Specification for Diesel-Electric Passenger Locomotives" (PDF). Amtrak. July 10, 2012. Retrieved January 3, 2016.

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716051936/http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=878935 to http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=878935

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) 20:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100928155720/http://www.getransportation.com/rail/rail-products/locomotives/earlier-locomotive-models.html to http://www.getransportation.com/rail/rail-products/locomotives/earlier-locomotive-models.html

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) 13:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

HEP?

The abbreviation "HEP" is used several times but is neither explained nor wikilinked. 49.145.132.39 (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense! The first time the term is used it is spelt out, wiki-linked and abbreviated. After that, on the abbreviation HEP is used. -Morphenniel (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Trivia

@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)

• This is an unhelpful comment and I think you should consider removing it. Mackensen (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Conrailman4122, you need to tone down your words, otherwise you may find yourself blocked. I also recommend that you start to read and understand Wikipedia policies. This is not a fan site, so anything that is not supported by a verifiable reference is subject to removal. -Morphenniel (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Conrailman, you're definitely going to be blocked (again) if you keep up this attitude. –Daybeers (talk) 20:32, 28 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)

Agreed! –Daybeers (talk) 20:32, 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)

@Conrailman4122: Next time I see any activity from the obvious IP address that you used, I'll file an entry at WP:SPI and let's see where that goes. Morphenniel (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Personal attacks from Conrailman4122 have been redacted from the conversation above.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

vs. LRC

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)

Well, the LRCs had 20 years on them when they were retired (and probably not as good of maintenance as modern standards). As for not just buying new LRC locos, it's not like they were still available, while the Genesis line was in active production for Amtrak and Metro-North, so Via Rail probably got a better deal by piggybacking on that production.

Regardless, this isn't the place to ask, as it's about the article subject, not about the article content. oknazevad (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Charger Height

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)

Yes, and the claim isn't substantiated in the text. I've reverted the change[1]. Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)