# Talk:Amtrak paint schemes

Lets try and get rid of these flags. I think the biggest thing we need is more citations for verification.PFreeman008 (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. This isn't my highest-priority project, sadly (I've got a huge backlog of images to deal with) but I'll find and format citations when I can. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Are there any pics of the 8-32Bs in Phase IVB/VI? Ken S. 19:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

B32-8WHs were never painted in phase IVb nor were any other Amtrak locomotives. The most recent schemes the B32-8WHs have seen are the two Amtrak California versions (MK I & MK II) and Phase V. PFreeman008 04:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry forgot to login

I inserted a few photos next to the matching phase paint descriptions to provide a visual of the description. --Rent A Troop (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Amtrak paint schemes. 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/20140827114440/http://www.hebners.net/amtrak/amtGEN42_61_69/amt61c.jpg to http://www.hebners.net/amtrak/amtGEN42_61_69/amt61c.jpg
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061108182302/http://www.hebners.net:80/Amtrak/amtGEN42f_123_132/amt128a.jpg to http://www.hebners.net/amtrak/amtGEN42f_123_132/amt128a.jpg
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aaa.biz/sycskits/campaigns/Amtrak/Amtrak_Branding_guidelines.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011182130/http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2471024 to http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2471024
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405022709/http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2196873 to http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2196873
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405022713/http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locolist.aspx?id=AMTK&search=search to http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locolist.aspx?id=AMTK&search=search
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 01:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Amtrak paint schemes. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6TWXu2RSw?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.detroitnews.com%2Farticle%2F20140915%2FMETRO06%2F309150021 to http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140915/METRO06/309150021
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430234633/http://www.amtrak40th.com:80/exhibit-train/restoring-the-exhibit-train to http://www.amtrak40th.com/exhibit-train/restoring-the-exhibit-train
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509044543/https://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/bulletin/2000/pb22024.pdf to http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/bulletin/2000/pb22024.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 00:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"In February 2015, the first Viewliner II Baggage cars entered revenue service wearing an updated version of Phase III (often erroneously referred to as Phase IIIb)."
Maybe it's just from being out of the looop a bit, but was this newly revised Phase III livery actually officially dubbed "Phase III," and not "Phase IIIb?"  Asking only becasue I am out of the loop.

There's not much official information, but going by [1] it's Phase III. Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians! It seems there is some disagreement about what the different Phases should be called. 198.212.199.98 claims to be an employee of Amtrak. I googled his name and found this Linkedin profile and this Top 40 Under 40 article, and based on that, he looks to be a brand specialist. He seems fairly new to the position, so maybe he is trying to change things around. According to WHOIS, the IP address looks to be owned by Amtrak. I'm just not sure what to do: I think leaving it as "Phase III – Amtrak America variant" is appropriate, but I'm stuck on calling the most recent Phase IVb or VI. These officially licensed N-scale Superliners built by Kato say they're in IVb, but 198.212.199.98 claimed there is no such thing. What are your thoughts? –Daybeers (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, just a general note, when you revert edits, please check the changes you are making. After the names were changed, I expanded citations and fixed the date formats, which was helpful and didn't have anything to do with the name changes. Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@PennCentral610: Please state your opinions here. Maybe we can come to a compromise, such as putting a line in both the Phase III – Amtrak America variant and IVb sections saying they are sometimes referred to as IIIb and VI, respectively. Please also refer to the point I wrote above about checking the changes you're making when reverting one's edits. Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Matt Donnelly is the Lead Brand Communications Specialist at Amtrak. He's somewhat given up correcting people and left it to people who know better because nobody listens. He released this document, have a look at it. https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/fileSendAction/fcType/0/fcOid/77875232777326664/filePointer/77875232777326682/fodoid/77875232777326678/Amtrak%20Paint%20Scheme%20and%20Logo%20Guide%20web%2012-5-17.pdf
It's on a forum because I posted it there. It was originally released in Dec. of 2017 by Matt to a closed Facebook group called Amtrak Modelers. -GenesisFan99, 4/18/18
@GenesisFan99: Is there any possibility that Amtrak would make it publicly available on their website, or at least that the document could be posted somewhere besides the forum? Archive.org isn't able to archive the document because it's on the forum; that means that if it's ever deleted from the forum, it's no longer usable as a Wikipedia source. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: I don't know if they ever will. I see your point, but just know that I personally always have a copy within arm's reach. If you would like me to email you a copy, I'm more than happy to, that way it can be archived. Everyone reading this should be aware I have posted information literally straight from the horse's mouth. That is official Amtrak information right there. Matt would tell you the same thing. -GenesisFan99, 4/19/18
@Daybeers: If you'll notice, Kato is actually changing their offerings to reflect the proper paint scheme name. MTH or Mike's Train House has already changed their Amfleet Is to reflect the correct Phase VI name. -GenesisFan99, 4/19/18
The issue is not about my access to the document - I have already downloaded a copy - nor whether I trust you. (I do, for the record). The issue is that all claims must be verifiable from a publicly available source - i.e., one that has been published either on the web or in print source. It doesn't have to be easily available - out-of-print books, or scientific papers that you must pay for, are acceptable - but an internal-only document is not sufficient. Having it on that forum would be fine except for the technical issue - it's not possible to use archive.org to save it for anyone to see in the future, as it would be if it was put on Amtrak's website or so on. I can email Matt to ask, but you're welcome to if you already know him. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: I understand now. I wasn't really sure how the archive process worked so I thought you could do that since you've been here longer. Anyway, I emailed Matt and he's going to see if it can be posted on an Amtrak site. No promises he said, it's not very high priority for him or Amtrak, and understandably so. He's a busy guy and he's more happy that there is no more misinformation. We'll have to see if the guide gets posted on an Amtrak site, I'll let you know. -GenesisFan99, 4/23/18
@Pi.1415926535 and GenesisFan99: I realize that I'm a bit late on this (I didn't really have anything to add earlier), but would it work if someone else hosted the file elsewhere (preferably where it could be archived, but just somewhere more permanent)? LittlePuppers (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@LittlePuppers: I would think that would be acceptable. It has to be somewhere permanent and not on that forum. -GenesisFan99, 5/15/18
@GenesisFan99: Okay.  I'm fairly busy in real life right now, but I'll see if I can host it somewhere else, and if it will archive there. LittlePuppers (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@GenesisFan99, Pi.1415926535,  and Daybeers: I've hosted the file here (direct link), and I did eventually get it archived here (direct link - for some reason it won't go directly to this page from the link, so you might want to cite that directly).  Use it how you will. LittlePuppers (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: About the image you removed-the rights belong to Siemens. I believe our use of it here falls under fair use. Let me know what you think as you know more than I do. -GenesisFan99, 5/15/18
No, there's not a reasonable claim of fair use. Fair use images have to be irreplaceable by free images, and there has to be a compelling reason to use it in the article. The Pacific Surfliner Charger at TTCI was transported there by rail, during which time a free image could have been taken, and it won't be long before they are in public service anyway. Additionally, this article already has dozens of images; that image does not illustrate a truly unique aspect that the article significantly lacks without. In any case, Commons absolutely does not allow fair use images; they have to be hosted on enwiki. I suggest patience until a free image is available. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Understandable, I'll wait to take my own sometime this summer. The thing is though, the units were transported to TTCI without logos so no other images are currently available. I don't have a problem with waiting just you can't assume that there are photos available because something went to TTCI.

So here I wanted to add this for you guys to either refer disruptive editors to or add to the article to deter disruptive editors. I didn't want to just go ahead and add it to the article because I go too far in depth sometimes and wanted to make sure the people here who are better at writing than me approved. If you want this added, feel free to pick bits and pieces of it, and edit it to your liking. 
So, proposed addition:
Amtrak's Phases are branding terms. While there are variations and Amtrak acknowledges there are variations, they do not use letters to distinguish. This is because each Phase is just like it sounds-it was a Phase that Amtrak was going through. Each Phase is the "face" of Amtrak for that era, and thus is the branding for that era. So, while there are variations in paint schemes, I don't think Amtrak would call its branding something else. For example, Phase II is not Phase IIb as it encompasses every derivative of Phase II branding. 
Separate things for Phase III and Phase VI:
While Phase III has made a small comeback, it is simply that, a small comeback of Phase III. To ensure the branding term argument holds true, the Phase III equipment bears red sill stripes and Travelmarks. This is to show it's still Phase III but is part of the Phase VI era. That does not make it Phase IIIb, however. This is equivalent to using current markings on Heritage Units in order to show while they are a throwback to a certain paint scheme, they are still part of the current modern era. 
As for the Phase IVb argument, here's why Phase IVb is actually Phase VI. Phase VI may use the same stripe pattern as Phase IV, but there are some key differences. The first two main differences are Phase IV uses darker colors than Phase VI and Phase IV uses the Wordmark instead of the Travelmark. Another difference is Superliner IIs painted in Phase IV omitted a red stripe but received that stripe when painted into Phase VI. 
To reinforce these points-the Phase III we see in service today does not apply to the Phase IVb/VI argument because it uses the same stripe pattern and the same colors, even though it uses an additional red sill stripe and Travelmark logos. In chronological terms, it also makes sense to call Phase IVb what it really is, Phase VI, when you consider the fact that Phase V was applied to rolling stock as well as locomotives. The most important thing to consider is Phase IVb couldn't be a correct term anyway as it's inconsistent with branding. It's not a throwback to Phase IV. If it was, it wouldn't be system-wide and would use the same colors. But Phase VI does not. This is why the Phase III we see in service today is not system wide. 
What do you guys think? Feel free to keep this here to refer disruptive editors to. GenesisFan99 (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

As I've seen, the Phase IVb livery scheme has had some controversy over what's named what. Even though I do understand that Phase VI is the "official" name for the scheme according to the guide, I believe that it's better to add headline info that Phase IVb is the common name so nobody gets confused between the original Phase IV and the new variant introduced in 2002. Phase IVb has been the name that has been applied to the "Phase VI" for a very long time but now Matt Donnely has taken branding more seriously, I believe people should still have the freedom to call the scheme "Phase IVb" because it's so similar to Phase IV and that there is no locomotive with a Phase VI. I believe people will start referring to Phase IVb as VI if applied on a locomotive. It's similar with Phase III and the new variant, though there key differences between the old & new, it's not like we're gonna refer to the new variant of Phase III as "Phase VII" cause it'll throw many people off. 
In New York State, there is a huge controversy over the Tappan Zee Bridge where the bridge was renamed the "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" and nobody liked it and people still refereed to the bridge as the Tappan Zee thoguh the name "Mario Cuomo" Has been strictly enforced. I believe there should be a compromise with both names and this goes with the same with Amtrak's Phase IVb scheme. So I'll just add that Phase IVb to the "Phase VI" just to come to a compromise and not start controversy. And DO NOT modify my edits cause according the guide, Phase IVb is also an name for the scheme.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.196.115 (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC) 

@67.87.196.115: There is no "controversy", and I'm very sorry that you think I'm an "asshole" for maintaining consensus and wanting reliable sources. "Phase IVb" was never an official name, never appeared in any official documents, and has never been used outside of foamers and the model-makers that cater to them. While noting its unofficial use in the text is fine, it should not appear in the lede nor in the heading. Can you provide any official Amtrak source other than the Brand Management document - which does not declare it an official name - that even mentions "Phase IVb"? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Pi here. –Daybeers (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Or any reliable secondary sources using it consistently? I also agree with Pi, there's no consensus here, and barely enough information to prove the IVb is actually a term that was used. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
What can we do to prevent this in the future? I really hate arrogance and it angers me to see this happening. 2606:6000:F50A:7C00:5CAA:123F:810E:72B7 (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Per Pi's request for official documents, here on the Official Amtrak History website, it's referred to as Phase IVb. https://history.amtrak.com/exhibit-train/model-trains/exclusive-models (last paragraph above the "The Models Are Here!" heading) And again here: https://history.amtrak.com/blogs/exhibit-train-blog/milwaukee-october-15-and-16 I understand that there is a desire to move away from calling it that, just pointing out that there are official Amtrak webpages that call it "IVb". PFreeman008 (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


### Midwest paint scheme
There's a new paint scheme out for the Midwest Corridor trains. At the moment it's only seen on the new Charger locomotives, but early renders from Siemens show it being applied to the cars as well. (not to mention the Amtrak California scheme appears to be changing a bit as well). Probably time to add the new scheme in... I'm struggling to come up with good wording to describe the dots. The new scheme: https://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/20170827-DJI_0624-600x400.jpg
I've not read thru them, but the Chargers all have different variations to the existing schemes for the Surfliner, Cali, and Cascades... not sure if we want to address that as well. PFreeman008 (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I've already covered the CA and WA schemes in their respective sections. Until anything comes out explicitly saying otherwise, the Midwest Chargers should be treated as a Phase V variation. (Likely this will become more clear next year when the single-level cars arrive.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Heh, I personally wouldn't consider the Midwest paint scheme to be part of the Phase V scheme. As it's the inverse, and includes a new element, the dots. We have Phase V passenger cars in service now, which are primarily all silver, the Acela. PFreeman008 (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
We now have official pictures of the new Midwest coaches to match the Chargers. I'm still of the opinion this needs it's own section, like Amtrak California. https://www.facebook.com/IllinoisDepartmentofTransportation/posts/10157656454567201 PFreeman008 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


### Long Distance Chargers
Amtrak just announced the new paint scheme for their new long distance Chargers. While I would certainly wait until there is an actual painted locomotive, they are calling the paint scheme Phase VI. https://media.amtrak.com/2020/08/amtrak-prepares-for-new-diesel-locomotive-fleet/ PFreeman008 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


### Acela II
The new Acela consists have been out testing for some time now with a new paint scheme as well. I have not heard anything official as to what this scheme is called however. I did take some pictures of it when it passed by me & can post when we have that section up. https://media.amtrak.com/media-images/new-acela-fleet-testing-on-the-northeast-corridor/ PFreeman008 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

First off, I want to say a big thank you to User:Pi.1415926535 for helping usher this page to a "good article" status. I wanted to discuss the inclusion of units with Operation Lifesaver, promotions, and advertisement decals as paint schemes. Being completely pedantic, they're adhesive-backed vinyl decals (stickers) and not actually paint. I think that's an important distinction: the decals are meant to be temporary. They typically only stay on for a few weeks or months. The other issue is: if we try to include every advertising wrap, the list would be unwieldy, if we only mention a few (as we do now) what is the threshold of notability? For those reasons, I would propose eliminating the Operation Lifesaver livery section, the ACS-64 promotional livery section, the mentions of the Seattle Seahawks wrap, and either eliminating the entire Advertising section, or at least removing our list of "Notable temporary advertisements." --RickyCourtney (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely hard to draw a line about notability, and what temporary schemes are worth including. I definitely think the notable advertisements should stay - those are the ones that have been discussed in third-party sources because of their visibility. The Celebrate the Century Express was around for 18 months, longer than some paint schemes have lasted. Amtrak's use of equipment as advertising is well-documented, and it would be irresponsible to exclude it. I wouldn't be opposed to combining the Operation Lifesaver, ACS-64, and perhaps the veterans units into a single one-paragraph subsection, but I don't see reason to eliminate them completely. While the article is titled "paint schemes", "liveries" is probably a more accurate description.
By the way, I hope you don't take offense to my copyedits / partial reverts of some of your recent edits. A lot of the article is very carefully worded to reflect what can be found in the available sources, and to deal with the inevitable complaints from railfans. It's very easy for the article to get excessively wordy, so I try to copyedit carefully. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
In regards to the Phase V livery: while the Amfleet refurbishment was definitely called the Capstone Program, I can't find any reliable sources that indicate that the livery actually took that name. (There are a few hits on modeling forums, but nothing that even indicates a particularly widespread unofficial name.) Acela Regional was only ever applied to NortheastDirect trains (see here for example); the Keystone Service and Empire Service retained their names. I've also removed the link to mobiles; it's not clear whether that's the origin of Amtrak's term. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey fellow editors!
662 was painted in a Phase III Train Sim World scheme a few weeks ago, and it should likely be added here, but I'm not sure where. Where do you guys think it should go? Thanks! Best, MTATransitFanChat! 00:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It's already been in the article for weeks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It would probably be going overboard to have a picture of every different paint scheme on every different model, but I think we should at least provide a picture of every scheme directly mentioned. I’m not sure what Wikipedia’s image policy is (whether all images must be Creative Commons or not), but here are the best images I could find on Google Images:
“Pepsi can” livery: https://live.staticflickr.com/7845/33130744348_160f9c72f4_b.jpg       (I see there’s already a picture of this, but it’s hard to see how the stripes angle toward the top in that one.)
Auto Train in Phase V: https://www.kdgregory.com/images/train.autotrain/autorack-large.jpg      
Surfliner 10th Anniversary: https://s3.amazonaws.com/rrpa_photos/135918/DSC02257.JPG
Cascades Airos: https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/New-Amtrak-Cascades-Train.jpeg
LA- Las Vegas Series 6: https://zierke.com/shasta_route/pics/talgo760_135mm_041101_edmonds.jpg (Also, could we please note that the painted set is a Series 6, as that was not clear until I looked at the photos)
NPCU #90250: https://live.staticflickr.com/5588/29992023163_5cc2039a81_b.jpg
Veterans Units: https://live.staticflickr.com/5554/18828436442_b0c1640d2f_b.jpg, https://history.amtrak.com/archives/acs-64-locomotive-no.-642-at-beech-grove-2015/@@images/d829133b-b754-4f10-949c-a018b11b1d4d.jpeg, https://live.staticflickr.com/5819/22070734269_51e09a3850_b.jpg          (Also, the article says “NPCUs Nos. 90208 and 90221”, which is bad grammar.)
“Day 1” ALC-42: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/bEdvcSzKSzg/maxresdefault.jpg
Phase I livery on P42 No. 161: https://tonystrains.com/media/catalog/product/cache/b27c8db2f74a9c09cfea93c73d0d3125/a/m/amtrak-p42-50th-anniversary-phase-1-161.jpg
"Pepsi Can" livery on P42 No. 160: https://www.trains.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/TRN_Amtrak_Pepsi_1_Richters.jpg
Phase V livery on P42 No. 46: https://www.overlandhobbies.com/v/vspfiles/photos/ATHG81317-2.jpg?v-cache=1628241037
Phase VI livery on P42 No. 108: https://akronrrclub.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/006-2.jpg
ACS-64 No. 662:  https://railfan.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Amtrak662800.jpeg
Operation Lifesaver livery: https://www.thedieselshop.us/CDTX%202007-Punch-SWelch.jpg, https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSX2gcLxOt3T8O9Y7veCA1D9wog4UNB9duA8NJt2LA67ml6NV1dQtS5W2djGys7uriY0Tk&usqp=CAU, https://oli.org/sites/default/files/styles/partial_uncropped/public/2022-01/Amtrak-P-42-Locomotive.jpg?itok=7AGV2xdf, https://i.pinimg.com/736x/3b/f7/8b/3bf78b14951e6f2dde9931d62d29e3ec.jpg
Sprinter 600/601: https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/locomotive/images/7/73/98uM1Ks.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130919112140
Sprinter 602: https://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/6/7/8/5678.1372604335.jpg
Also, two noteworthy paint schemes that are not mentioned here are the Avelia  (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Avelia_Liberty_Slocum_RI.png) and Airo (https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/12/amtrakairo_coachcabcar.jpg?quality=82&strip=all&w=1600) schemes, both of which are branches of Phase VII.
If anyone finds better images of any of these, that’s absolutely fine. Thanks!
-AAEexecutive (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a railfan spotters guide. We do not need a gallery of every single vehicle/livery combination. As yes, images have to be freely licensed, which none of those images are. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
👍
-AAEexecutive (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
The only images I'm going to press, then, are the Pepsi Can livery- I feel like we could find an image that better shows the upward bend of the stripes- and the Avelia Liberty livery.
- AAEexecutive (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
@AAEexecutive: I've swapped "Pepsi Can" mages and added the Avelia Liberty, using appropriately licensed images that are on Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

There's some disagreement on which Phase VII images to show, which got a little side-tracked over the addition and removal of alt text. Here are some versions:

Three images
Two images, ALC-42 and P42DC, version 1
Two images, ALC-42 and P42DC, version 2
I have no opinion on the merits; obviously whatever images are selected will have alternative text. WP:GALLERY governs. Mackensen (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Two images is definitely sufficient - we don't need a duplicate P42DC image. I'm ambivalent about which of the P42DC images to use; a crop of the version 2 image focused on the locomotive might be best. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd prefer option 3 as that P42 image does a better job of showcasing the paint scheme on the side of the locomotive.  Jcody21 (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, two images is sufficient. Agreed with Pi that a crop of the version 2 image focused on the locomotive might be best. However, I really like the P42DC, version 1 for the top image on the GE Genesis page. I'm gonna put it there as a bold suggestion. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Phase VII paint has also been spotted on at least one Dash 8-32BWH. I don't have any opinion as to whether an image of this is warranted, especially considering that so far Phase VII has pretty much just been the same pattern projected onto different locomotive shapes. Besides that, I agree with RickyCourtney (talk).
- AAEexecutive (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)