Talk:GE Genesis

message: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: 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)
thread_title: Pictures

message: "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)
thread_title:  Not So Unique 

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

message: 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 thumb|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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Main article photograph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Metro-North Paint Schemes ('Livery') 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hostler's stand removed from P40DC 

message: An image used in this article, , 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 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Amtrak GE Genesis.png Nominated for Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Locomotive (P42DC) weight 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Since when was there a monocoque F40PH? 

message: 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): 
From Siemens Charger: 
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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:GE Genesis]] 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed! –Daybeers (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, and the claim isn't substantiated in the text. I've reverted the change. Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charger Height