Talk:EMD E9

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.

EMD E9 was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: January 7, 2006. (Reviewed version).

Delisted GA

I'm delisting this article from GA status because:

no inline citations, not a requirement for GA, but generally should be used with statistics
no lead
not thorough; the article only allows a brief description of the train w/o going into much detail
redundant statements like: Many E9s survive today
needs work; example:

for hauling inspection specials, charter passenger trains, investor tours, and the like- the like has to be changed to a more approriate term

AndyZ 20:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations are now a requirement of GA status, so we'll need to work on that too now. Slambo (Speak) 21:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an E8/E9 roster and article in Extra 2200 South Issue #43 on pages 14-25. The Milwaukee Road E9As #36A,C-#38A,C are carried as E9Am because of their train heat equipment. --SSW9389 (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SSW

Pinkepank/Marre page 132 and local "legend" (grew up by the Racetrack) show 21 E9s (5 second hand) and 4 E8s, and I've seen that elsewhere. I believe that is correct, but don't remember where the extra 5 came from. Maybe your E8s are right, they had plenty. Are your numbers 2200 South, and how good are they (never seen a 2200S)? Thank you.Sammy D III (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is from a linked roster at The Diesel Shop: http://archive.trainpix.com/BN/EMDORIG/E9A/INDEX.HTM The linked roster shows that the CB&Q E9As became BN 9910-9925 and that the lower roster numbers BN 9900-9908 were ex CB&Q E8As. The Extra 2200 South issue #43 E8/E9 roster was done before all the rebuilds and renumbering was done. The locomotive newsmagazine Extra 2200 South was founded by Jerry Pinkepank back in the early 1960s. --SSW9389 12:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Your source is clearly good, if you have numbers directly from it, solid gold. But I’m missing something. On your link all I see is E9 9919 and 9920 becoming BN 1 and 2, must be the business train? And I don’t think there was a 9925, there was a 9900, I’ve seen it, so 9925 would be the 26th unit. 9900-9920 would be 16 + 5 more. Also, the last 4 E8s were an add on order 5 years later, you wouldn’t start numbering from the top, leaving only exactly 4 lower numbers for an add-on, would you?

Using 9900-9908 makes me wonder if someone has confused CB&Q 9900-9908 (the “shovel-noses”) with BN 9900-9908 (rebuilt Es for the “dinks”).

I think that buying E9s when you have a ton of E8s doesn’t quite makes sense. But I’m 90% sure I have heard “second-hand” relating to these. Maybe they had unloaded most of the E8s before the start of the program?

I was surprised at the E8/E9 bias, we called them all “E9”, as opposed to the E5s, clearly different (rare and ultra-cool). But I must have rode behind E8s, they were all pooled, and before push-pull you switched engines on each end of each commuter trip.

My source is also Pinkepank, the 1979 Update with Marre. The M-K program, with a photo of 9903, is on page 132. I think I’m right, but that doesn’t always happen, I often stand corrected. And I’m enjoying the conversation. Thank you.Sammy D III (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's me again. Looks like I (and Pinkepank/Marre(79)) probably stand corrected, this guy: http://textfiles.com/fun/amtrak.txt supports your numbers, with only 6 missing. My guess is that they got new numbers after the add on order had already been delivered. Low numbers are E8 1st batch, 9906-8 are E8 2nd batch, but 4,5, and 9 are missing, you can't quite draw lines. And this look like there were 26, so we're missing one engine. Either an E8, or they bought an E9. I'm going to keep looking, but wanted to let you know.Sammy D III (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BN numbers for the 25 rebuilt E units in the commuter pool were E8As 9900-9908 and E9As 9910-9925, there was no 9909. --SSW9389 19:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Bingo, that works. 16 E9s + 5 E8s (which I thought were bought E9s, don't know why), then 4 more E8s. The numbers could work earlier on, too, if they left a 5 unit gap for possible extras, then only used 4. Sorry for doubting you. Sammy D III (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undocumented PRR 5805 wreck rebuild

Pennsylvania Railroad E8A #5805 was wrecked at Chicago Union Station on March 10, 1954. The unit suffered a broken underframe behind the cab, a photo is on Flicker and an accident report is in the ICC train wreck database. A rebuild of this unit was accomplished on a new underframe. The same EMD serial number was used: 15669. No documentation of this rebuild has surfaced. The rebuilt unit was later renumbered PRR 4270, then PC 4270 and finally became NJTR 4270 as a parts source. The date of the rebuild likely later in 1954 is beyond any date associated with an E8A being rebuilt by EMD. The rebuild of Pennsylvania 5805 may be an undocumented E9Am. --SSW9389 (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]