# Talk:EMD AEM-7

I changed the top speed on Acela Regional from 110 mph to 125 mph since Amtrak now runs all Regional trains at up to 125 mph (and they have dropped the Acela part of the name).  I also deleted the reference to Northeast Direct in the top speed spec since there are no longer any NE Direct trains (too bad, I sort of liked that name better).
66.31.111.251

Thanks. By the way, you can easily "sign" your "talk" postings by ending your post with four tildes (~~~~). When you press "Save page", this will be replaced by your username (or IP address) in a handy Wikilinked format and it will also contain a timestamp for your edit.
Atlant 23:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I work for Amtrak, my father worked the railroad, My fathers father worked on the railroad and known of us, nor anyone I know has ever heard the AEM7 be referred to as a Toaster. I sent out a system email to others in the NEC and no one had ever heard of them called a toaster. Where did this name come from? Is a foamers name? --Kev62nesl 05:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's probably mostly a railfan term. Google gets a fair number of hits both in the web space (excluding WIki) and the newsgroup space.
Atlant 15:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I have heard "toaster" used many times on various train enthusiast message boards; though I don't think the "meatball" nickname is widely used by the public at large.
Pressuredrop16 (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the meatball term should be ridded. If a Sweedish Meatball is actually boxy, the NN stays. 72.76.181.118 (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Out
I think I know why the locos are NN'ed the "Sweedish Meatballs". The locos are derived from Sweedish SJ Rcs. It's slang. OK. The Meatball term stays.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.181.118 (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I've heard them called "Flying Toasters" as well, in addition to "Sweedish Meatballs" Bart99gt (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I've read in Gerald Foster's "A Field Guide to Trains" (Houghton-Mifflin, 1996)the AEM7 referred to as "Toaster".  I have also read it in Trains magazine more than once, although I'd have to go back and find the citations for when they used the term.  The "Meatball" term is one I have rarely or never heard.  One of my favorite trains, due to its durability and longevity of service, although there are many locomotives which have served much longer.  I suspect they will continue to remain in service for many years to come.Gill228 (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
When I was down on October 5th at the 100 year anniversary of Union Station in Washington, the poster in front of a MARC AEM-7 on display listed one of the facts as follows: "affectionately known as Toasters." From my experience, this is the most used nickname by railfans. Is this like other railfan terms, for instance, "Rhinos" and "Amcans?" Are any used by Amtrak crews?Smurfer2 (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I too saw the "affectionately known as Toasters" sign and was amused, as I expected to see Swedish Meatball, which wasn't on the sign.  Who wrote the signs?  Popularization of terms is often done by the popular press, irrespective of the terms' coinage.  Meatballs are a source of energy and the nickname might have come from that sense (as opposed to shape), although, one must wonder, why not meatloaf?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.32.244 (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've heard them being nicknamed 'toasters' for years. Not a dubious claim -- HarveyHenkelmann (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I was a consultant to Amtrak and the FRA at the time the AEM&'s were first delivered.  I believe the AEM7 was nicknamed "Toaster" by the train crews because whent he trains were first delivered they had no air conditioning.  Each locomotive was later retrofitted with a roof mounted RV Air Conditioiner.  The fact that it was electric powered and shapeed like a box (which is after all what a toaater is) helped make the nickname stick.  The boxy shape of the 125mph locomotive, when compared to the streamlined 40 year old GG1 it replaced, also helped.Jkkesler (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Is the proper designation for this locomotive "AEM7" or "AEM-7" (with hyphen)? The title doesn't have the hyphen, but every use in the article does. I was about to move the page to "EMD AEM-7", but I figured I should make sure I was right first. —LrdChaos 15:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Even the Amtrak web site is quite inconsistent. It may well be that, at this point in the loco's history, nobody can actually answer this question with authority. The best resource would be the original purchase contracts or manufacturer's documentation.
Atlant 16:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I got home and realized I have a copy of the EMD Operators Manual for the locomotive, which says "AEM-7" right on the cover. I'm considering that to be pretty authoritative, and accordingly I've moved the page (and updated other pages as needed). —LrdChaos 01:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well done, thanks!
Atlant 15:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The sentence:
"... With all the weight on eight drivers, the AEM-7 has the highest horsepower to weight ratio (70 hp/ton) ever, coupled with a sophisticated wheelslip control (Pressductor) system."
should either be deleted or otherwise seriously revised. With no quotation given it does not make sense. Probably it should read something like " ... had the highest ever power to weight ratio at its date of introduction within the AMTRAK network (or: on any US railroad??)". The locomotives certainly do not have the highest power to weight ratio of a locomotive produced so far or only even when they took to the tracks. There are many contrary examples for that over in Europe. Today US loco types like the ALP46s with a weight of about 94to and a rated output of 7100hp certainly have a better power/weight-ratio than the AEM-7s.
Can someone more competent than me rectify that? Thanks & regards, 194.246.46.15 (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of information article that amounts to railfanning lore: scrapped locomotives, number of engines still on the property, etc. It's sourced to dubious sources such as pictures and forum posts, and it's probably wrong (certainly we have no real way to prove that it's right). I think it might be best if we remove it altogether. We should be summarizing reliable sources, not providing the latest best guess on the state of the fleet. Mackensen (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think an individual roster is appropriate for this article. It's not encyclopedic, we don't do such lists elsewhere, and inevitably it's going to be based on railfan lore, which isn't an acceptable source. I'm sure somebody out there is keeping a list (trainorders, on-track-on-line), and we should just link to that. Mackensen (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Colpar22: This information needs a source and it's not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a railfanning forum, despite occasional appearances to the contrary. Mackensen (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Colpar22: It's been over two weeks. Is there a verifiable source for the roster? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

So I was just reading this article and I noticed on the current status section, it said "all were retired on April 14, 2015." That is absolutely not true because I definitely saw some AEM-7 locomotives running on the Northeast Corridor in December 2015, and it says there are nine left that are active on the list of rolling stock. I'm thinking that should be changed to "all retiring in 2016," or something like that because there are still some AEM-7 locomotives active that Amtrak operates.
TrainExpert105 (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that's referring to the AEM-7DCs (ACs remain active) but yes, it's confusingly worded and under-sourced. Mackensen (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh I got it now. Thank you, Mr. Mackensen. I don't normally pay attention to the AC and DC part of the AEM-7s, but that does make sense to me now. TrainExpert105 (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I've taken this section out. It's unencyclopedic and unreferenced. I also know that it's inaccurate, at best. Mackensen (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

that's literally why it was done...no, it really wasn't, although I don't dispute that this claim was made.  A good part of the support for AMTRAK came from people who expected it to fail.  Anmccaff (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, some of the Class Is expected it to fail and to be rid of their passenger trains. The public mandate of Amtrak was to reverse decline. The conflicting motives are already discussed at Amtrak#Formation and they're beyond the scope of the article. That mandate is relevant in the context of Amtrak ordering new, improved equipment. By the time the AEM-7 order comes through it's clear that Amtrak isn't going to be the "last hurrah" that some expected, and that's the spirit in which this article treats that topic. Mackensen (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Not just the Class Is.  Some of the pols setting it up, and a goodly number of insiders in DOT itself.  Anmccaff (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of intentions, the official public mandate was to reverse decline. (Never mind that even those who expected failure had more optimism for the NEC - when the RPSA was passed, the Metroliners were impressing everyone). The current wording in the article is just fine and doesn't need to be muddled with historical footnotes that were long irrelevant by the time the toasters came around. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
No need to add any muddlesome explanations and footnotes; just leave it out. Anmccaff (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Article needs to be renamed per recent decisions and page moves by User:The ed17 (e.g. PRR L6 to Pennsylvania Railroad class L6

That doesn't follow. Those locomotives were named after the railroad that operated them; this one (like hundreds of others) is named after the manufacturer. It can probably be demonstrated from sources that the use EMD (and GE) is so common that WP:NCA isn't offended. Even if it is, the name would be Electro-Motive Division AEM-7, not Amtrak Class AEM-7. It was never called that, and wasn't unique to Amtrak. Mackensen (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
As Mackensen. EMD reflects actual usage, & avoids the side issues of other buyers and other marketing, Again, as mentioned above, expanding PRR isn't analogous. Anmccaff (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I realize that railfanning forums are following the movement of two AEM-7s to Pueblo with great interest, but the information is not encyclopedic and doesn't belong here. Once there's a story in a reliable source about why they moved to Pueblo, then we might have something. Mackensen (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

They are being moved there to allow the test track for high-speed testing of the overhead catenary system (OCS). This is preparation for the test-track to see whether the existing OCS is suitable for testing the Avelia Liberty train sets. These may need to be tested at up to 165 mph, but the center needs to know whether the catenary needs replacement, and also whether the reverse curve at the top of the main test loop needs to be removed/straightened. You'll need to dig deep to  find a source for this ... but you heard it hear first!! Morphenniel (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on EMD AEM-7. 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/20160119170116/http://rrmuseumpa.org/media/AEM7%20Locomotive%20No.%20915.pdf to http://www.rrmuseumpa.org/media/AEM7%20Locomotive%20No.%20915.pdf
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) 08:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:EMD AEM-7/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: RickyCourtney (talk · contribs) 02:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello,
I will be reviewing this article shortly.
--RickyCourtney (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Responses:

I added some language about the AEM-7s importance to Amtrak.
Swapped in a MARC image for the ACS-64.
Added a sentence to make it clear in context what HEP does.
Broke up the last paragraph for readability.
-- Mackensen (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Reviewer response:
With those changes made, the article passes. Congratulations to all editors involved.
--RickyCourtney (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's likely that SEPTA will retire its AEM-7 fleet in 2018. However, it hasn't yet, and per WP:CRYSTALBALL the article should reflect that. This edit introduces a WP:INTEGRITY problem by adding the 2018 claim to a source published in 2015. Mackensen (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I added a few citations to support the edits by Special:Contributions/96.234.22.42 (talk) Daybeers (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your edit isn't an improvement. It needlessly duplicates existing sources, adding them to the lede. All of those sources state an expected delivery date of 2018. That's happening, though none of our sources say so. Delivery is one thing; these locomotives actually entering revenue service is another. Mackensen (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, first of all, you removed helpful citations I added about the final run of Amtrak's AEM-7s in June 2016 and MARC's retirement of their AEM-7s in April 2017. Secondly, I added that SEPTA expects to replace its fleet in 2018, which doesn't imply it is a definite event. Also, your most recent edit pretty much says the same thing as the edits I made, just further down in the article. I have added back in my information in the lead using your source for the SEPTA information, which is more recent than the ones I was using. Daybeers (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@Daybeers: I don't understand why you're adding citations to the lead for information that's already cited in the text. It's unnecessary, and goes against MOS:CITELEAD. You also managed to remove the web archive URL for the Curbed source. So we have a mangled source, duplicated sources. If you're just trying to add "in 2018" to the end of the lead then that's fine, but everything else you've done is completely unnecessary and in some cases counterproductive. Mackensen (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mackensen: The web archive isn't needed, as the link is still active on Curbed's site. I apologize for adding the citations in the lead, which you feel are unnecessary. In my opinion, I feel that when reading an article, adding citations to the lead makes it easier to find sources for pieces of information, rather than having to find the same claim later in the article. However, I have read and respect MOS:CITELEAD. Daybeers (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to parse out what's new in the addition given that the paragraphs were also reshuffled. Has Caltrain actually bought the AEM-7s? I was under the impression that it was still under discussion, but that nothing was final. Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe that's what the section is trying to say: that it's not formal yet. I also personally feel the reshuffling results in better reading. –Daybeers (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for reshuffling and adding content simultaneously. Here is what I was trying to add to the section (shown in red and with references commented out:
Caltrain, which operates commuter trains in the San Francisco Bay Area, showed interest in purchasing several retired Amtrak AEM-7s to test their electrified line once completed. The units would also serve as backup power for EMU cars. In January 2018, separate contracts were ready to be awarded to Amtrak (for refurbishment) and Mitsui (for purchase) for electric locomotives. Mitsui owns several ex-Amtrak AEM-7 locomotives, and it has not been reported how many of these will be sold to Caltrain.
The January 2018 PCEP progress report (page 49, cited in added text) states the contracts are ready to be awarded to Amtrak and Mitsui, so I believe the purchase is imminent but not final. It can be inferred (but is not explicit from the reference) the electric locomotive(s) to be purchased are AEM-7AC owned by Mitsui, since it is unlikely that Amtrak would have the technical expertise to refurbish any other model and Mitsui is a known owner of several AEM-7AC locomotives. However, since much of the added content is speculative, I will abide by the reversion until the actual contracts are awarded and referenced.
Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I created a sandbox with proposed restructuring that eliminates the speculative purchase by Caltrain, if it's helpful. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Ownership, with all the various leases and leasebacks, can be a real rat's nest. I'd prefer to wait until the deal is actually inked and announced. The article already notes that Caltrain is interested. Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Sounds fair. I'll keep an eye on the board meeting minutes/progress reports to see if the contracts are awarded. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm putting this here for now to keep track ... from Monthly Progress Reports, PCEP Delivery Coordination Meeting status updates:

Dec 5: "The white paper addressed to the FTA regarding the AEM-7 Electrification Test Locomotive was sent on Thursday, November 16." source, page 11/104
Dec 19: " The FTA accepts PCEP moving forward with locomotive procurement, and the contract for Mitsui has been readied." [same source]
Jan 2: "The Memorandum of Understanding for the AEM-7 Electrification Test Locomotive has been finalized and sent to Mitsui." source, page 12/118
Based on the singular noun, it looks like one AEM-7(AC) is being procured from Mitsui. I prefer to wait until an announcement is made, as this is quite a bit of reading between the lines. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Clem Tillier states that #938 and #929 are headed to Caltrain. #938 will be made operational using parts from #929. The comment on his blog is hardly a reliable source, but it agrees with the "clues" being left by Caltrain. Still waiting to hear an official announcement from Caltrain. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Ex-Amtrak No. 915 was moved to the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania in June 2015. source
Ex-Amtrak Nos. 928 and 942 were moved to the Transportation Technology Center, Inc. in July 2017. source1, On Track On Line source2, Amtrak in the Heartland blog
Ex-Amtrak No. 945 was moved to the Illinois Railway Museum in February 2018. source1, Trains magazine (subscription required, unable to read text) source2, Amtrak in the Heartland blog
I'm putting these here for now. The disposition of 928, 942, and 945 are still not confirmed by reliable sources. I'm not sure if TTCI will release press information to confirm 928 and 942, and the transfer to IRM may need a week or two to see a press release. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Locomotives sent to TTCI should not be considered preserved in any case. It is a testing center, not a museum, and it is unlikely that those two locomotives will last long. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
For 945, the Trains report says "[a] source close to the museum confirms to Trains News Wire the addition of motor No. 945." That seems okay, but I agree waiting makes sense. Regarding 928 and 945, Sanders is an expert on Amtrak but when he writes "Online reports" he means RAILROAD.NET or something similar. I've heard conflicting things about why they're at the TTC. See also #Pueblo move above. Mackensen (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
This article states that Unit 945 is heading for the Illinois Railway Museum [1] - Morphenniel (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@Morphenniel: Yes, and it's referring to the Trains post linked at the top of this section. I've been keeping an eye on the IRM website and they haven't announced anything. Mackensen (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The Museum's Facebook page also confirms it [2].  I guess that the website won't be updated until it actually arrives at the site and/or is on display. Morphenniel (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Latest news: Danbury Railway Museum now has 917. [3] Davidng913 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Is aging the only reason why this locomotive retired?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 05:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 

I think there should be a table listing all the operators that have used the AEM 7. This would include the operators, number of units, fleet numbers, build dates, and notes. several other train engine articles already have fleet summery tables. Trimetwes fan1003 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Typically such rosters only include original owners (see my recent comment at Talk:EMD F40PH for the reasoning). That's a short table in this case: Amtrak, MARC, and SEPTA. Probably why one was never included before. The EMD F40PH is something of an outlier in Amtrak locomotives in that it found wide use with other railroads (another that has, Siemens Charger, also has a table). Mackensen (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)