![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SSW9389 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
Dorin, Patrick C. (1972). Chicago and North Western Power. Superior Publishing. pp. 108–110. ISBN 0-87564-715-4. 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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 15:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
User Graywalls has recently removed information in this GP9 article supported by Don Strack's Utah Rails website. Strack is a highly regarded railroad historian who now hosts Andre Kristopans' EMD Serial Number pages. There are very few sources of this EMD data available to the average person. It would be my contention that Mr. Strack supports Mr. Kristopans work because it is highly accurate and would not have it on his website if it were not. -- SSW9389 ( talk) 11:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The article has several different production numbers. In the body of the article, the number 3,436 is listed. The infobox claims a production total of 4,277. When I made some changes to the article today, I just stated production was "over 3,000" since that holds true for both numbers. Does anyone have a reliable source on the correct number of GP9s produced? Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 02:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies require an article that is verifiable and reliable. If we can establish the credentials of Andre Kristopans (not Don Strack, he didn't compile the page on EMD), then we can use that per WP:SPS. It's a high bar, especially when we're not lacking reliable information. I have a couple of sources at hand. Jeff Wilson puts total production at 4,257: 4,902 standard units and 165 "B" units. [1] Gerald Foster, an older source, gives 3,436. [2] He's probably relying on The Second Diesel Spotter's Guide, which gives that figure and then also 165 for the "B" units. [3] Wilson would seem to be the best source at the moment. Mackensen (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Then, there is WP:DUE. A recognized previously published expert could pull each key from a particular laptop and weigh each one of them. His previous published articles would possibly make the information reliable, but including such information like the weight of individual key cap weight based on an expert's personal website would fail on the due weight consideration ground. These microscopic excessive details about train cars is bordering on such. Graywalls ( talk) 17:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
References
The production sum of 4257 stated in two books likely represents 99.5% of GP9 production. For an online encyclopedia in the information age maybe that is good enough. Do either of those books have GP9 rosters? If those books do not have GP9 rosters how was the production figure of 4257 figured out? The GP9 roster in the January-February 1972 issue of Extra 2200 South states that some 4272 GP9s were built. A roster of those units is in the article. The Kristopans data set shows more that 4272 GP9s were built. The difference in the data is the wreck rebuilds and the trade in units and how that they are accounted for. It would appear that the 4257 number does not include data on these trade in and rebuild units. -- SSW9389 ( talk) 09:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The Extra 2200 South issue #32 details 4272 GP9s of new manufacture, trade-in and rebuild. EMD built some 3461 of those GP9s plus the 165 GP9Bs for a total of 3626 units. General Motors Diesel in Canada built an additional 646 GP9s. The grand total used in this December 1971 database of GP9s is 4272 which includes the 15 units exported to South America. Using the data in this Extra 2200 South issue would get Wikipedia to 99.86% accuracy of all known GP9s. The Kristopans data details some 4277 GP9s (He found five more wreck rebuilds). And the CN 4824 is listed as a GP9 in the GMD production data, but is included with the GP7 Tally in Extra 2200 South issue #31. The true number of GP9s is around 4278 which would get you to 99.99% accuracy or until the next undocumented wrecked GP9 photo is discovered . . . -- SSW9389 ( talk) 16:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@ SSW9389:, You can not take something from source A and source B, then come to the conclusion C yourself without a credible source drawing up the conclusion C, per WP:SYN. Wikipedia editor's personal knowledge can not be directly applied anywhere in the article, however personal knowledge is useful for the purpose of knowing what to look for, but verifiability is not optional. If it is removed for citation related reasons it must not be restored without backing it up with sources that meet WP:RS requirements. Graywalls ( talk) 15:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I removed this section because there was no sources for it. Feel free to add this back if you can find a source. Cutlass Ciera 21:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SSW9389 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
Dorin, Patrick C. (1972). Chicago and North Western Power. Superior Publishing. pp. 108–110. ISBN 0-87564-715-4. 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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 15:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
User Graywalls has recently removed information in this GP9 article supported by Don Strack's Utah Rails website. Strack is a highly regarded railroad historian who now hosts Andre Kristopans' EMD Serial Number pages. There are very few sources of this EMD data available to the average person. It would be my contention that Mr. Strack supports Mr. Kristopans work because it is highly accurate and would not have it on his website if it were not. -- SSW9389 ( talk) 11:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The article has several different production numbers. In the body of the article, the number 3,436 is listed. The infobox claims a production total of 4,277. When I made some changes to the article today, I just stated production was "over 3,000" since that holds true for both numbers. Does anyone have a reliable source on the correct number of GP9s produced? Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 02:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies require an article that is verifiable and reliable. If we can establish the credentials of Andre Kristopans (not Don Strack, he didn't compile the page on EMD), then we can use that per WP:SPS. It's a high bar, especially when we're not lacking reliable information. I have a couple of sources at hand. Jeff Wilson puts total production at 4,257: 4,902 standard units and 165 "B" units. [1] Gerald Foster, an older source, gives 3,436. [2] He's probably relying on The Second Diesel Spotter's Guide, which gives that figure and then also 165 for the "B" units. [3] Wilson would seem to be the best source at the moment. Mackensen (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Then, there is WP:DUE. A recognized previously published expert could pull each key from a particular laptop and weigh each one of them. His previous published articles would possibly make the information reliable, but including such information like the weight of individual key cap weight based on an expert's personal website would fail on the due weight consideration ground. These microscopic excessive details about train cars is bordering on such. Graywalls ( talk) 17:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
References
The production sum of 4257 stated in two books likely represents 99.5% of GP9 production. For an online encyclopedia in the information age maybe that is good enough. Do either of those books have GP9 rosters? If those books do not have GP9 rosters how was the production figure of 4257 figured out? The GP9 roster in the January-February 1972 issue of Extra 2200 South states that some 4272 GP9s were built. A roster of those units is in the article. The Kristopans data set shows more that 4272 GP9s were built. The difference in the data is the wreck rebuilds and the trade in units and how that they are accounted for. It would appear that the 4257 number does not include data on these trade in and rebuild units. -- SSW9389 ( talk) 09:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The Extra 2200 South issue #32 details 4272 GP9s of new manufacture, trade-in and rebuild. EMD built some 3461 of those GP9s plus the 165 GP9Bs for a total of 3626 units. General Motors Diesel in Canada built an additional 646 GP9s. The grand total used in this December 1971 database of GP9s is 4272 which includes the 15 units exported to South America. Using the data in this Extra 2200 South issue would get Wikipedia to 99.86% accuracy of all known GP9s. The Kristopans data details some 4277 GP9s (He found five more wreck rebuilds). And the CN 4824 is listed as a GP9 in the GMD production data, but is included with the GP7 Tally in Extra 2200 South issue #31. The true number of GP9s is around 4278 which would get you to 99.99% accuracy or until the next undocumented wrecked GP9 photo is discovered . . . -- SSW9389 ( talk) 16:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@ SSW9389:, You can not take something from source A and source B, then come to the conclusion C yourself without a credible source drawing up the conclusion C, per WP:SYN. Wikipedia editor's personal knowledge can not be directly applied anywhere in the article, however personal knowledge is useful for the purpose of knowing what to look for, but verifiability is not optional. If it is removed for citation related reasons it must not be restored without backing it up with sources that meet WP:RS requirements. Graywalls ( talk) 15:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I removed this section because there was no sources for it. Feel free to add this back if you can find a source. Cutlass Ciera 21:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)