Talk:EMD GP9

message: The last GP9B would be from the Pennsylvania Railroad's order for 10 #7230-7239 which was completed in 12/59. The last GP9s built were Algoma Central #171-172 in 8/63 by GMD in Canada. Domestic US production ended with Pennsylvania #7269 in 12/59. --207.69.137.12 18:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See http://community-2.webtv.net/ajkristopans/ANDRESGMLOCOMOTIVE/ for Serial and Production data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.117.123 (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Last GP9B

message: Larry Russell's EMD Export Page lists four GP9s exported to Peru and six GP9s exported to Venezuala. See http://emdexport.railfan.net/home.html and look in the model link there. --SSW9389 (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Exports

message: There are a number of units listed on the roster as GP9s that actually are GP9Ms. I will be making notations on these units as I get them sorted out and then make a general comment to the text on what a GP9M is and how it is different from a regular GP9. Also GP9 export units will be added to the EMD total. --SSW9389 16:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GP9Ms

message: N&W GP9 #675 has been restored to operational status and is used for excursions by the Bluegrass Railroad Museum.  More information is available here: http://www.bgrm.org/#/locomotives/4514554518. BGTwinDad (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration

message: the webtv links (such as http://community-2.webtv.net/ajkristopans/ANDRESGMLOCOMOTIVE/page2.html) pass WP:ELNO?  Seems to me they also pass WP:FANSITE.  If they cannot be sufficiently explained as to WHY they they don't pass either guideline listed, then they should not be included here.  Also, if the data was gotten from the EMD product cards, those should be sourced, otherwise those sites are considered original research.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Andre Kristopans has placed the data from the EMD Product Data Cards on line. These are from paper GM records, there is only one other online source I'm aware of that attempts to do the same thing with GM records. The original source of the records would be General Motors and its subsidiary companies. The person who has done the work and the original research would be Andre J. Kristopans among others. The  holders of these scarce GM records possess pure data on when the GM locomotives were built, for what railroad, what road numbers they were originally assigned, etc. Kristopan's site is unique in that it lists all the export and foreign built GM products. The majority of the GM locomotive rosters were done with data from the Kristopans site. Mr. Kristopans is on Wikipedia, look at the notes he has left on the back pages of some of the F unit articles. --SSW9389 00:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unable to find his userpage, perhaps you can clue me in on it?    ArcAngel   (talk) ) 02:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See user 76.223.76.83 --SSW9389 04:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain to me how... 

message: has C&NWRy drawings and spec sheets for #1711, that’s where added info comes from. Sammy D III (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other differences between Dorin and The Diesel Shop, including HP. Maybe the difference between 800 and 835 max RPM? Difference in length may be OAL (Dorin) vs. pulling face (others?). Dorin has pulling face dimension lines, but no dimensions. 3 inches per knuckle sound good? Sammy D III (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox, ref 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on EMD GP9. 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/20140722194452/http://www.sdrm.org/roster/diesel/emd/history/ to http://www.sdrm.org/roster/diesel/emd/history/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Six EMD F3s were exported to Canada in May 1948. These were the two ABA sets of order E958 shipped on May 28, 1948 numbered 9000-9005. The booster units were the 9001 and 9004. CN F3A 9005 was wrecked at South Junction, Ontario on May 17, 1958 and was sent to the GMD plant at London, Ontario. GMD built a general purpose unit for CN on order #A-1714 that used parts of the wrecked F3A. The unit resembled a phase 3 GP9 like all the other  GP9s built at that time. The unit was shipped in October 1958.  The unit was numbered 4824 to take the roster slot just after the CN's 24 GP7s 4800-4823. The strange part of this case is how this unit is classified by diesel historians. You can find it listed as a GP7, GP7M, and GP7R. The GMD production records show it as a GP9. At this point CN 4824 is listed on the GP7 page. The Diesel Spotter's Guide includes CN 4824 as a GP 7. It is the 112th GMD GP7, built in October 1958. --SSW9389 (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The strange case of CN 4824 

message: This particular Geep has two serial numbers as it was wrecked and rebuilt early in its time on the Rock Island. The first 1329 was a GP9 built by EMD as serial #25219 on order 5599 in April 1959. That unit is documented on this GP9 page. The second 1329 was a Geep? rebuilt by EMD as serial #26348 on repair order 8069 in November 1960. The second 1329 is described as having 1750 horsepower, some sites carry it as a GP9 and some as a GP18. The Extra 2200 South roster in issue 32 shows 1329 2nd as a GP9 built in November 1960 which is a year past what is considered the end of EMD GP9 production. Whatever the case is this second 1329 is not documented on either the GP9 or GP18 page at this time. The 1329 2nd can either change the end date of EMD GP9 production to November 1960 or add a 406th GP18 to that page. --SSW9389 (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't think a single rebuild is enough to change the production history. Original builds and rebuilds are different things, and there is a parameter in the locomotive template for rebuilds. There are multiple reliable sources which state original production ended in 1959. If you are asserting production ended at a different time, please include references stating so with inline citations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Original production at EMD ended in December 1959. Original production at GMD ended in August 1963. --SSW9389 (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the clarification. I understand why you'd want the production end date to be in 1963 now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was unsourced. A source I found says 1959, so 1959 it is for now. Graywalls (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't have this book until last week, but one of my sources (Diesel Locomotives: The First 50 Years, by Louis A. Marre) states that GP9 production did continue in Canada until August 1963. The source in question is already included in the article with the appropriate page numbers elsewhere (it is number 4 on the list of inline citations). It looks like SSW9389 was correct about the production dates, although refused to use proper citations. I think we can finally put this dispute to bed for good. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rock Island 1329 2nd 

message: SSW9389, I have told you I concur that production in Canada continued until 1963. However, I cannot verify your modified production number with the sources I have. That doesn't mean the number you are proposing is wrong, but the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence. Regardless, you need to provide inline citations for the information you are changing, as it is disputed. Since you are the one who has access to Extra 2200, and the one who is proposing the change, you are the one who needs to add the citations to the article. Graywalls included a reference in his edit yesterday, and you are reverting his work without providing any references of your own. Mentioning references in edit summaries or on the talk page is not sufficient for verifiability, as most readers will never see those pages. If you provide citations, I don't think anyone will continue to dispute the information you are adding. I don't want to get into an edit war here. I know you are a knowledgeable contributor, all I am asking is that you provide specific citations in the article for your work. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 4107 + 165 = 4272 It's basic addition! --SSW9389 (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 4092 + 165 = 4257 which is the North America GP9 total and shows bias to the South America total of 15 units. 4092 + 15 = 4107. --SSW9389 (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not here to argue about basic addition, and I have no bias towards North American production. The sources I have do not mention any export production. You need to provide references for this information, it's Wikipedia policy. Please review Wikipedia:Citing Sources. Provide inline citations for the numbers you are claiming, and this dispute will be over. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Check your North American book for quantities of other EMD production that have export sales. For example the FP9, GP18, GP28, SD9 and SW1200 all have quantities exported. You need to provide documentation that your source is accurate for all production (it's not). You caused this dispute by using incomplete information and claim your source is correct. Everything about GP9 production up to December 1971 is in the cited Extra 2200 South issue #32. --SSW9389 (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is absurd. It is inappropriate to throw blame back at me. I have references with inline citations to support the number I am claiming, and you do not. You need to back up the number you're claiming with an inline citation, not just a general reference. This is not optional. Please take a look at WP:Inline Citation and appropriately cite the production number you are claiming. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Can an editor personally enter bias into an article?, because that is what Trainsandotherthings has done. He has introduced North American only bias into the GP9 article. Dr. Marre's book is North American production only and should not be used for articles where export units are known. Is bias optional or is it a given conclusion? --SSW9389 (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are treading dangerously close to personal attacks with that comment. You continue to ignore the requirement that you add an inline citation; until you source your claim, it will continue to be reverted for being unsourced. End of story. Graywalls and I have repeatedly explained this to you and you continue to ignore it in favor of accusing us of bias. I have said multiple times I will not oppose your claim if you back it up with an inline citation. I am not inherently opposed to Extra 2200 South as a source, but you need to use an inline citation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  , if you can not figure out how to do inline, then you should suggest the edit and explain where it is on Extra 2200 South for someone else to edit rather than continuing to make edits yourself that do not conform to requirements. Graywalls (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production Numbers and Build Date Dispute 

message: I removed this section because there was no sources for it. Feel free to add this back if you can find a source. CutlassCiera  21:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original buyers