This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
EMD AEM-7 has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 20, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from EMD AEM-7 appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 19 January 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
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).
I work for Amtrak, my father worked the railroad, My fathers father worked on the railroad and known of us, nor anyone I know has ever heard the AEM7 be referred to as a Toaster. I sent out a system email to others in the NEC and no one had ever heard of them called a toaster. Where did this name come from? Is a foamers name? --Kev62nesl 05:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I've heard them being nicknamed 'toasters' for years. Not a dubious claim --
HarveyHenkelmann (
talk)
08:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I was a consultant to Amtrak and the FRA at the time the AEM&'s were first delivered. I believe the AEM7 was nicknamed "Toaster" by the train crews because whent he trains were first delivered they had no air conditioning. Each locomotive was later retrofitted with a roof mounted RV Air Conditioiner. The fact that it was electric powered and shapeed like a box (which is after all what a toaater is) helped make the nickname stick. The boxy shape of the 125mph locomotive, when compared to the streamlined 40 year old GG1 it replaced, also helped. Jkkesler ( talk) 19:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Is the proper designation for this locomotive "AEM7" or "AEM-7" (with hyphen)? The title doesn't have the hyphen, but every use in the article does. I was about to move the page to "EMD AEM-7", but I figured I should make sure I was right first. — LrdChaos 15:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I got home and realized I have a copy of the EMD Operators Manual for the locomotive, which says "AEM-7" right on the cover. I'm considering that to be pretty authoritative, and accordingly I've moved the page (and updated other pages as needed). — LrdChaos 01:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@ Colpar22: This information needs a source and it's not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a railfanning forum, despite occasional appearances to the contrary. Mackensen (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Colpar22: It's been over two weeks. Is there a verifiable source for the roster? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
I've taken this section out. It's unencyclopedic and unreferenced. I also know that it's inaccurate, at best. Mackensen (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
that's literally why it was done
...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)
Article needs to be renamed per recent decisions and page moves by User:The ed17 (e.g. PRR L6 to Pennsylvania Railroad class L6
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: RickyCourtney ( talk · contribs) 02:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I will be reviewing this article shortly.
--
RickyCourtney (
talk)
02:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
Done | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Article is well referenced. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Nearly all citations are from published sources or government documents. When press releases are used, they are non-contentious. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Ran the article through the copyvio detector and no red flags were detected. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
Done | |
7. Overall assessment. | Other than the above-listed concerns, this is a very good article on a locomotive that is very important in Amtrak's history. |
Responses:
-- Mackensen (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Reviewer response:
With those changes made, the article passes. Congratulations to all editors involved.
-- RickyCourtney ( talk) 06:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
It's hard to parse out what's new in the addition given that the paragraphs were also reshuffled. Has Caltrain actually bought the AEM-7s? I was under the impression that it was still under discussion, but that nothing was final. Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm putting this here for now to keep track ... from Monthly Progress Reports, PCEP Delivery Coordination Meeting status updates:
Based on the singular noun, it looks like one AEM-7(AC) is being procured from Mitsui. I prefer to wait until an announcement is made, as this is quite a bit of reading between the lines. Cheers, Mliu92 ( talk) 19:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
Is aging the only reason why this locomotive retired? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
EMD AEM-7 has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 20, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from EMD AEM-7 appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 19 January 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
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).
I work for Amtrak, my father worked the railroad, My fathers father worked on the railroad and known of us, nor anyone I know has ever heard the AEM7 be referred to as a Toaster. I sent out a system email to others in the NEC and no one had ever heard of them called a toaster. Where did this name come from? Is a foamers name? --Kev62nesl 05:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I've heard them being nicknamed 'toasters' for years. Not a dubious claim --
HarveyHenkelmann (
talk)
08:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I was a consultant to Amtrak and the FRA at the time the AEM&'s were first delivered. I believe the AEM7 was nicknamed "Toaster" by the train crews because whent he trains were first delivered they had no air conditioning. Each locomotive was later retrofitted with a roof mounted RV Air Conditioiner. The fact that it was electric powered and shapeed like a box (which is after all what a toaater is) helped make the nickname stick. The boxy shape of the 125mph locomotive, when compared to the streamlined 40 year old GG1 it replaced, also helped. Jkkesler ( talk) 19:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Is the proper designation for this locomotive "AEM7" or "AEM-7" (with hyphen)? The title doesn't have the hyphen, but every use in the article does. I was about to move the page to "EMD AEM-7", but I figured I should make sure I was right first. — LrdChaos 15:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I got home and realized I have a copy of the EMD Operators Manual for the locomotive, which says "AEM-7" right on the cover. I'm considering that to be pretty authoritative, and accordingly I've moved the page (and updated other pages as needed). — LrdChaos 01:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@ Colpar22: This information needs a source and it's not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a railfanning forum, despite occasional appearances to the contrary. Mackensen (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Colpar22: It's been over two weeks. Is there a verifiable source for the roster? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
I've taken this section out. It's unencyclopedic and unreferenced. I also know that it's inaccurate, at best. Mackensen (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
that's literally why it was done
...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)
Article needs to be renamed per recent decisions and page moves by User:The ed17 (e.g. PRR L6 to Pennsylvania Railroad class L6
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: RickyCourtney ( talk · contribs) 02:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I will be reviewing this article shortly.
--
RickyCourtney (
talk)
02:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
Done | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Article is well referenced. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Nearly all citations are from published sources or government documents. When press releases are used, they are non-contentious. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Ran the article through the copyvio detector and no red flags were detected. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
Done | |
7. Overall assessment. | Other than the above-listed concerns, this is a very good article on a locomotive that is very important in Amtrak's history. |
Responses:
-- Mackensen (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Reviewer response:
With those changes made, the article passes. Congratulations to all editors involved.
-- RickyCourtney ( talk) 06:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
It's hard to parse out what's new in the addition given that the paragraphs were also reshuffled. Has Caltrain actually bought the AEM-7s? I was under the impression that it was still under discussion, but that nothing was final. Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm putting this here for now to keep track ... from Monthly Progress Reports, PCEP Delivery Coordination Meeting status updates:
Based on the singular noun, it looks like one AEM-7(AC) is being procured from Mitsui. I prefer to wait until an announcement is made, as this is quite a bit of reading between the lines. Cheers, Mliu92 ( talk) 19:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
Is aging the only reason why this locomotive retired? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
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)