Talk:EMD F40PH

Comments

Suggest changing the main article image. AMTK 406 is not a true F40PH, but an NPCU (Non-Powered Control Unit) in an F40 shell.

Doesn't the NCTD Coaster use the F40PH? NCTD isn't included in the owners section.

F40PH designed for Amtrak EMD then offered them to other railroads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.250.67.99 (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This video explains everthing that is so cool about this locomotive... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU1_L5ww3og --68.52.147.138 (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

what's so fun about this train? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.210.67.113 (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Except for the evidence presented by the pictures, the article would lead the reader to believe this locomotive was designed EXCLUSIVELY for, and used EXCLUSIVELY by Amtrak, with NO OTHER users......Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is way to Amtrak-centric. These are actually pretty common locomotives on various commuter systems, used by, just off the top of my head, the MBTA, Metro-North, NJ Transit, AMT, and Metra. Some mention of these agencies fleets, and the changes made to them would be a good addition. Alas, I don't know enough to make detailed changes to the article, but woulduch appreciate if someone with such (citable) knowledge could add it to the article.oknazevad (talk) 05:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe Amtrak's initial order for F40PH's had absolutely nothing to do with the SDP40F issues. They were always intended for short haul service. It was later that it was decided to use them everywhere and eventually, junk most SDP's and reuse major components for F40's.Filmteknik (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Retired vs. being active on railroads

Why did they had to retired the EMD F40PHs? I wish they never retired it in the first place. EMD F40PH is my favorite best locomotive ever than the GE P42DC locomotives. Are we going to bring back the EMD F40PHs? Why did it retired the F40PH locomotives in 2003? What was the reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.255.52.184 (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Design flaws

While McDonnell does discuss the location of the fuel tank relative to the battery box and air reservoir, the NTSB report does not single out this design choice as a contributing factor. Rather, the NTSB discusses the crashworthiness of fuel tanks in general, and makes no specific recommendations concerning the F40PH. I'm removing the section absent a source which makes this connection. Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Rebuilds

I'm unsure whether the M-K/MPI rebuilds should be discussed in this article (or counted as F40PHs for the purposes of tabulation). Of the two journal articles that this article is primarily drawn from, Holland doesn't discuss the rebuilds at all. Graham-White and Weil do, and include the rebuilds in their count, but the article was published in 1999. If MPI "built" additional locomotives after 1998 we need a source for it. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents

Have any of the class been involved in an accident or incident? Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• The 1996 Maryland train collision comes to mind. It was mentioned in earlier version of the article (see #Design flaws above). There was also the 1990 Back Bay, Massachusetts train collision. I don't know that the article would gain from a discussion of these incidents; the locomotive's design wasn't a contributing factor in either accident. Mackensen (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It doesn't need to be, but for completeness, there should be an accidents and incidents section. This is common across many locomotive class articles. Mjroots (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • If the section could be written as a prose summary, in the manner of Boeing 747#Accidents and incidents, then that might be a useful addition. I don't know if there are sufficient sources for that. I think a trivia-style list of accidents would detract from the article. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:EMD F40PH/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 07:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I am reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   The URL for External link/Specification Sheet seems to be malformed. Everything else looks fine. Shearonink (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks for that fix. Shearonink (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No copyright violations found with the copyvio tool/Shearonink (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Factual, straightforward article. Shearonink (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Very stable, no edit-wars. Shearonink (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   I didn't realize that they could all look so different. Shearonink (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The external link needs to be fixed. Everything else seems to be good to go, will be doing a few more proofreading/deep-readthroughs to make sure I haven't missed anything. Shearonink (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

   The site in question is dead; I replaced it with an equivalent link. Mackensen (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

   I honestly couldn't find much wrong with this article. It's a straightforward article about a mechanical subject, the references are all nice and clean, the prose is easy-to-understand, the images are appropriate, the image-permissions are good. And I love the photos of this locomotive - didn't realize when I started that they would be so familiar-looking to me, the Wikilinking is thoughtful...nicely-done. I know there are possible improvements going forward - keeping the article up-to-date as the locomotives age out of active use, and so on. Congratulations, it's a GA. Shearonink (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EMD F40PH. 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/20160327231627/http://railworld-inc.com/forms/F40M-2F-Front.pdf to http://railworld-inc.com/forms/F40M-2F-Front.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) 13:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"The most modern locomotives remained in private hands to operate the various commuter services which, by law, did not pass to Amtrak."

Such as?

It wasn't the case for Santa Fe's and Milwaukee Road's FP45's, for Santa Fe's U28CG & U30CG fleets, for any of the 35 SDP35's delivered to 4 customers, or for the Great Northern's SDP40's and SDP45's.

For 2nd generation diesel power delivered pre-Amtrak that were purchased with the intention of being used at the head of intercity passenger trains, I'm skeptical that anything except for Southern Pacific's SDP45's ever coupled onto a commuter train regularly in the United States after Amtrak's formation.

Instead, they moved to freight service and in some instances like Santa Fe's FP45's and Southern Pacific's SDP45's, saw semi-regular use between freight assignments as business train power, handled special passenger moves, and even as protection power for Amtrak services.

• You're right, and the source (Holland) made the point that these units were in used for both freight and commuter operation. Mackensen (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Panama Canal usage

I agree that we shouldn't cover the disposition of every locomotive, but I think the detail that the HEP powers the container refrigeration (that detail wasn't in the news blurb but it's in the older Trains article) makes it worth including in the body, though not in the lede. Mackensen (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it can't be briefly mentioned in the body of the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Built from components

@GeorgR (de): somewhere with this edit the article got confused about which Solomon is the source. Do you still have access to North American Locomotives: A Railroad-by-Railroad Photohistory, and is it the correct source for footnotes 35 and 36 (The MBTA's dozen F40PHM-2C locomotives were built new using EMD components, as were the six F40PH-3 locomotives of the Altamont Commuter Express)? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, good catch. Footnote 35 was referring to the wrong book after that edit; it actually cites the 2012 book. I have edited the article accordingly now. Footnote 36 is correctly referencing 2016's book. GeorgR (de) (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Owners

In general, the practice for articles on US locomotives is to list the original owners only, and not to maintain an ongoing list of current and former owners. Such rosters move into trivial territory, and can be difficult to source reliably. Mackensen (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

An idea that could taken to Australia actually, thanks for the idea! Fork99 (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't preclude discussing secondary usage in the text of course. Mackensen (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes of course, as long as it's properly referenced and everything. Fork99 (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue is, we end up with things like this insanity if rosters are not kept in check. Ralifans tend to be allergic to references, especially when we specify that railfan forums and picture hosting websites don't count. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think we should be including all current and former owners, as that will spiral out of hand rather quickly. This isn't like art, where provenance of a locomotive is absolutely worth mentioning (or even well-documented). – Epicgenius (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Articles should be encyclopedic for general users rather than being exhaustive information designed specifically for rail fanning. Graywalls (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

If there is significant coverage of secondhand owners (Panama Canal Railway comes to mind and is indeed already mentioned), I see no reason we cannot mention it briefly. But again, this is if and only if there is reliable coverage to establish as much. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

How is having the destination of each unit serial # of train cars encyclopedic rather than information clutter than keeping tag on where each VIN of 63 units of Lamborghini Sián FKP 37 went from the factory? Graywalls (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself from Talk:EMD F7; the road number is not the serial number, and it's not a VIN, it's a visible designation issued by the current owner useful for identifying a vehicle, even from a distance. Also, unlike a VIN, reliable sources publish this information. This has been discussed any number of times at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. If you think the consensus is wrong you should raise a more general discussion rather than going around to every locomotive talk page. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

MBTA F40PH-3C Upgrades

While the list of original/former owners shows their models, should it be updated to show the MBTA's upgrades from F40PH-2C models, into F40PH-3Cs? It feels a bit confusing on first read when you see that the article mentions that the F40s were upgraded into 3Cs, just to have the table contradict that argument. Only reason I haven't changed it is the question of; is the table preserving the original version of the models, and shouldn't it mention that somewhere visible to the public if so (instead of in an invisible comment)? Archangelectra (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The table should reflect the original purchases only - trying to account for all changes would be near impossible. I don't think it's contradictory, since the text clearly says the original designations of the MBTA locomotives. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535 Ah, must've missed that last part. That's completely on me. Archangelectra (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

New Preserved Units Section

Now that several units are confirmed to have been preserved for museums and other agencies like Amtrak 231 and 281 and Coaster 2103 and 2105, it seems necessary to make a new section to list preserved units. Trimetwes fan1003 (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)