Talk:EMD AEM-7

message: 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)
thread_title: Speed

message: 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)
thread_title:  highest horsepower to weight ratio 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Source quality 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Roster 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current status section 

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No need to add any muddlesome explanations and footnotes; just leave it out. Anmccaff (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ""with a mandate to reverse decades of decline."" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rename to Amtrak Class AEM-7 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pueblo move 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  SEPTA retirement 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  This article states that Unit 945 is heading for the Illinois Railway Museum  - Morphenniel (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text:  The Museum's Facebook page also confirms it .  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)
thread_title:  Preserved units 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fleet summery list