Talk:EMD GP9

Last GP9B

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)

See http://community-2.webtv.net/ajkristopans/ANDRESGMLOCOMOTIVE/ for Serial and Production data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.117.123 (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Exports

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)

GP9Ms

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)

Restoration

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)

Explain to me how...

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)

Andre Kristopans has placed the data from the EMD Product Data Cards on line. These are from paper GM records, there is only one other online source I'm aware of that attempts to do the same thing with GM records. The original source of the records would be General Motors and its subsidiary companies. The person who has done the work and the original research would be Andre J. Kristopans among others. The holders of these scarce GM records possess pure data on when the GM locomotives were built, for what railroad, what road numbers they were originally assigned, etc. Kristopan's site is unique in that it lists all the export and foreign built GM products. The majority of the GM locomotive rosters were done with data from the Kristopans site. Mr. Kristopans is on Wikipedia, look at the notes he has left on the back pages of some of the F unit articles. --SSW9389 00:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I was unable to find his userpage, perhaps you can clue me in on it?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 02:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

See user 76.223.76.83 --SSW9389 04:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

infobox, ref

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)

There are other differences between Dorin and The Diesel Shop, including HP. Maybe the difference between 800 and 835 max RPM? Difference in length may be OAL (Dorin) vs. pulling face (others?). Dorin has pulling face dimension lines, but no dimensions. 3 inches per knuckle sound good? Sammy D III (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140722194452/http://www.sdrm.org/roster/diesel/emd/history/ to http://www.sdrm.org/roster/diesel/emd/history/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Recently removed information

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)

Archived version of the source that is the subject of contention supports ArcAngel's concern. It is original research.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120817092820/http://community-2.webtv.net:80/@HH!E9!89!CF3A4D95E425/ajkristopans/ANDRESGMLOCOMOTIVE/page2.html You argue that these are from "paper GM records". Refer to WP:USESPS regarding the use of internal documents. Your own personal page would be the place to share information as you see fit, but Wikipedia is not the place to share things that do not conform to the sourcing standards regardless of how credible you think a certain person is. Graywalls (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

GP9 Production Numbers

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)

Do you want accuracy or an article that meets Wikipedia standards? --SSW9389 (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@SSW9389:, Anyone can give a number and claim that theirs is the accurate one. Therefore, it must be verifiable against a reliable, published source, not including "self publishing" vanity presses. It might be best to just omit it. After all, the contents should be comprehensive, not exhaustive. It is an encyclopedia. Not a production record. Graywalls (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls has attacked noted locomotive historian Don Strack repeatedly and refuses to admit that the best source of EMD information online is maintained at https://utahrails.net/ajkristopans/ajkristopans-index.php Any attempt to follow Graywalls example adds a certain level of mediocrity to the information on Wikipedia. Production records exist and should be used. Any source that doesn't use production records is flawed and should not be included on Wikipedia. --SSW9389 (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC) The true count of GP9s is over 4,000, not 3,000. A large degree of bias has been introduced into this article by not including GMD production and production dates in the lead. Both EMD and GMD began building GP9s in 1954. EMD switched to GP18s in late 1959. GMD continued to build a limited number GP9s until 1963. Information in the lead does not match information in the info box. --SSW9389 (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a flamewar here, my only interest is attempting to resolve the discrepancy between the two numbers. SSW9389, I appreciate you want to have the correct information in the article, and I agree that the production number is important (would the GP9 be notable if only a few dozen were produced, instead of thousands?). But Graywalls is right that sources must be reliable and verifiable, and unfortunately I don't believe utahrails counts as a reliable and verifiable source by Wikipedia guidelines, even if everything on it is 100% correct. Don Strack may be the world's most knowledgeable person when it comes to EMD production, but a personal site does not meet the Wikipedia rules for verifiability and independence. A good way to resolve this number count dispute would be to find a published book that gives a number for GP9 production. I have a book that states production for GP7, GP9, and GP18 models combined is 7,347. That isn't enough to go on for just GP9 numbers however. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:20, 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. Gerald Foster, an older source, gives 3,436. He's probably relying on The Second Diesel Spotter's Guide, which gives that figure and then also 165 for the "B" units. Wilson would seem to be the best source at the moment. Mackensen (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I just today had a book I ordered come in, and this book claims a production total of 4,092 A units and 165 B for Canada, the United States, and Mexico, for a grand total of 4,257, the same number as Wilson. The book in question is Diesel Locomotives: The First 50 Years by Louis A. Marre. We have two independent sources agreeing on the 4,257 number, I'm going to update and source the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trainsandotherthings (talk • contribs) 01:34, 3 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)

Graywalls, I don't understand what it is you consider "minute details." This article isn't going around giving extremely minute details on the GP9. There is no inherent limit on the length of an article, per WP:NOTPAPER. The general consensus among editors in train related articles is that information such as production numbers is pertinent and should be included. Most of what could be called "minute details" is confined to the infobox. If I were to draw a parallel to your example, I would consider having entire paragraphs about small parts of the locomotive such as the headlights or railings to be excessive details. Simply listing the number of units produced is in no way a "microscopic excessive detail", especially when there is a discrepancy of nearly 1,000 units. The GP7 and GP9 are very notable in part because of how many were produced, which caused them to also be a large influence on future locomotive designs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:24, 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)

I would say that for an online encyclopedia written from secondary sources in a summary style, the sum of 4257 is good enough if we trust the authors. Wilson does not include a GP9 roster per se, but does include historical rosters for over 120 railroads, so you could cull from there and get pretty close. He does also indicate sources relied on:

• Diesel Era
• Extra 2200 South
• thedieselshop.us
• american-rails.com
• Diesel Locomotive Rosters
• EMD's Locomotive Reference Data

Plus some others. Mackensen (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Mackensen that 4257 comes pretty close to the true number. Based on what SSW9389 says, we can assume 4257 is the number of original builds from EMD and EMC, but not including trade ins and rebuilds. Personally, I think we could note those in the rebuilds section (which needs to be redone anyway as it does not have any citations) but I would leave the 4257 number in the lead section and infobox. There is also a parameter for rebuilds in the infobox template I believe, that could be filled out to account for the missing rebuilds in the build total. I do not have any information on rebuilds so I will leave that task to other editors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Do either of those books with the 4257 number show data for export locomotives? Or are they strictly focused on North American locomotives. If they don't have export information the 4257 number is not correct as there were 15 export GP9s. The sum of 4257 North American GP9s plus the 15 GP9s exported to South America is 4272, which is the total GP9s shown in Extra 2200 South issue #32 GP9 roster. --SSW9389 (talk) 15:20, 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)

Ok, so which of what you said above is directly supported by Extra 2200 South issues? Kristopan page is not usable. We do not do original research and the minimum requirement is that the contents added can be directly supported by the source. Graywalls (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The total 4,272 is the number of GP9s built according to the January-February 1972 edition of Extra 2200 South. See the article Early Geep Tally-part II by Dick Will and Allen Copeland on pages 17-18. Part I of this series is in the October-November-December1971 issue of Extra 2200 South and has a Tally of all GP7s, GP18s and GP20. Both Tallies are accurate to December 1971. --SSW9389 (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The strange case of CN 4824

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)

Rock Island 1329 2nd

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)

Personally, I don't think a single rebuild is enough to change the production history. Original builds and rebuilds are different things, and there is a parameter in the locomotive template for rebuilds. There are multiple reliable sources which state original production ended in 1959. If you are asserting production ended at a different time, please include references stating so with inline citations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Original production at EMD ended in December 1959. Original production at GMD ended in August 1963. --SSW9389 (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I understand why you'd want the production end date to be in 1963 now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It was unsourced. A source I found says 1959, so 1959 it is for now. Graywalls (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't have this book until last week, but one of my sources (Diesel Locomotives: The First 50 Years, by Louis A. Marre) states that GP9 production did continue in Canada until August 1963. The source in question is already included in the article with the appropriate page numbers elsewhere (it is number 4 on the list of inline citations). It looks like SSW9389 was correct about the production dates, although refused to use proper citations. I think we can finally put this dispute to bed for good. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Production Numbers and Build Date Dispute

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)

4107 + 165 = 4272 It's basic addition! --SSW9389 (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

4092 + 165 = 4257 which is the North America GP9 total and shows bias to the South America total of 15 units. 4092 + 15 = 4107. --SSW9389 (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not here to argue about basic addition, and I have no bias towards North American production. The sources I have do not mention any export production. You need to provide references for this information, it's Wikipedia policy. Please review Wikipedia:Citing Sources. Provide inline citations for the numbers you are claiming, and this dispute will be over. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Check your North American book for quantities of other EMD production that have export sales. For example the FP9, GP18, GP28, SD9 and SW1200 all have quantities exported. You need to provide documentation that your source is accurate for all production (it's not). You caused this dispute by using incomplete information and claim your source is correct. Everything about GP9 production up to December 1971 is in the cited Extra 2200 South issue #32. --SSW9389 (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

This is absurd. It is inappropriate to throw blame back at me. I have references with inline citations to support the number I am claiming, and you do not. You need to back up the number you're claiming with an inline citation, not just a general reference. This is not optional. Please take a look at WP:Inline Citation and appropriately cite the production number you are claiming. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 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)

Can an editor personally enter bias into an article?, because that is what Trainsandotherthings has done. He has introduced North American only bias into the GP9 article. Dr. Marre's book is North American production only and should not be used for articles where export units are known. Is bias optional or is it a given conclusion? --SSW9389 (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

You are treading dangerously close to personal attacks with that comment. You continue to ignore the requirement that you add an inline citation; until you source your claim, it will continue to be reverted for being unsourced. End of story. Graywalls and I have repeatedly explained this to you and you continue to ignore it in favor of accusing us of bias. I have said multiple times I will not oppose your claim if you back it up with an inline citation. I am not inherently opposed to Extra 2200 South as a source, but you need to use an inline citation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@SSW9389:, if you can not figure out how to do inline, then you should suggest the edit and explain where it is on Extra 2200 South for someone else to edit rather than continuing to make edits yourself that do not conform to requirements. Graywalls (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Original buyers

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)