Talk:EMD FL9/GA1: Difference between revisions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 17:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 21:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll take this review. The usual boilerplate: please respond to comments with {{done}}, {{not done}}, etc. Note that I may make some suggestions that are beyond the GA criteria – my aim is to make the article as good as possible – but I will only pass/fail based on the criteria. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: Good work here, including your changes so far. Don’t be discouraged by the number of comments below – most are minor fixes or cleaning up cruft that predates you. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox image is “near” Enfield per the source, not necessarily at Enfield station

  I assumed it was linking to the town of Enfield, rather than the station. I changed the link to point to the town. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Link “electro-diesel”

  Assuming you meant in the infobox, done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the infobox information is not sourced

  Removed roots blower as I can’t find support for it, but Diesels to Park Avenue calls out the generators, traction motors, and air brakes. Did I miss citations for any other technical information? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I don’t think we need to list the New Haven’s designation in the lead; it doesn’t seem to have been widely used.

  Moved the detail to the body. If I can remember how to do explanatory notes, I can put the information in one to further condense the prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I’d move the Foster cite out of the lead – it’d be odd to have it be the only cite there

  You’re right, I missed that it hadn’t been removed. Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Change the end of the final sentence to ; several remain in operation. (since the current wording makes it sound like the private owners are in operation, not the locomotives)

  Good catch, changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems strange to have the plans to abandon electrification not mentioned until the operations section, as that was a major impetus for the design.

  Will work on this. I picked up a new book on the FL9 at the Big E train show last month and I’ve only now had an opportunity to really read through it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Link to traction motor

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• EMD F-units –> EMD F-unit family

  Reworded to “EMD F-unit line” to match that article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• It’s confusing to have the different weights for the two types be mentioned before the two types are explained.

  Let me think on how to rearrange this information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Link “over-running” to Third rail#Shoe contact

  Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Explain why the locomotives would be using Penn Station (I presume trains running through to PRR territory?)

  The practice of all intercity trains calling at Grand Central didn’t come about until Amtrak. Looking through my sources for more information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Spell out 28 at the beginning of the sentence

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Their first stop was the… –> They were first sent to the…
• What were the pantographs drawing power from? The text makes it sound like they were using the third rail, but that doesn’t make sense to me.

  Overhead lines were installed at strategic locations in the terminal tracks where large groups of switches prevented third rail from being installed. The idea was that if a locomotive stalled in one of the gaps, a pantograph could be raised to restore locomotive power rather than a rescue locomotive having to be dispatched. Added more information from a new source which I recently obtained a copy of. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Any information about the cost of the second order?

  Doing… I need to look into this further. Price for the first order came from contemporary Trains Magazine articles, so I may need to dive back into the archives to find this information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Hyphen after “Matter”

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I would move the final paragraph to the design section

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I would retitle this “New Haven operation” for clarity. Or have that be a subsection, and make the “Penn Central and beyond” section also a subsection (which is probably my preference)
• Reduce this to one image, maybe two if you really insist. I think the Providence image is the strongest and the Warehouse Point image the weakest.
• I swear there’s a Shoreliner article somewhere that discusses the de-electrification plans, but I can’t find it for the life of me. Will keep looking.
• Sentence starting Once the FL9s were delivered… needs to be rewritten slightly – right now the final clause is confusing.
• an EP-5 could produce –> an EP-5 could also produce
• I’d write out “eleven” just to make it clear it’s not part of the locomotive class
• Link to Cape Codder (NH train) (which covers all of the NYC-Cape Cod trains)
• Other railroads operating into…: I would split this in two, and have it list railroad-line-railroad-line rather than railroad-railroad-line-line

• Consider replacing the PC image with this image, or cropping the existing image to focus on the locomotive
• Move the Amtrak image down to the rebuilds subsection
• The first two sentences are confusing – “ceased operations” implied that operations ended, rather than being transferred more-or-less intact to Penn Central.
• I’m not sure if the mention of other locomotives on the Shore Line is relevant, unless that was part of the FL9s being freed up for other lines
• Did Penn Central eliminate half of all New Haven trains? Or just on certain lines? Looking at my timetables, I think it may have just been NYC-Boston trains and maybe NYC-Springfield that got cut.
• There’s some inconsistency about whether “New York Central” and “Penn Central” are spelled out or abbreviated. No preference between the two, but it should be consistent.
• Clarify that the Amtrak leased units were for Empire Service trains serving points north – the current wording makes it sound like they were for Croton locals.
• as needed for Hudson Line service: clarify that this was for Amtrak service over the Hudson Line, not Hudson Line commuter service
• I would combine the two short paragraphs beginning Penn Central retired units … and Amtrak addressed the age…
• Link “AC traction” to AC motor
• Introduce the FL9AC designation
• Amtrak replaced its six FL9s…: need to reorder this sentence. MTV may love the 1990s, but I don’t think the decade had dual-power capability.
• Any details why they lost their third rail capability?
• The farewell train isn’t mentioned in the prose, so I’m not sure it’s the most relevant image, especially since it’s outside usual territory. This image would be useful for illustrating the heritage livery that started with the FL9s.

• Remove this as redundant.

• The list is partially 2015 status, partially current status. Either have it be current status only, or have it be 2015 status with subsequent history as relevant (my preference). There’s also a bit of cruft to trim. I may have follow-up suggestions after this is done.
• Reduce this section to two images – I recommend the Danbury museum shot plus perhaps this shot.
• Too much detail about #2019. We don’t need to know the one-week use or the train name.
• Have the two RMNE entries be sub-bullets of a single bullet
• Don’t say “currently”. Several items need as-of dates (or acquisition dates etc)

I would remove this section. The Superman item is USERGENERATED trivia, and having models available is so common that I don’t think it needs noted.

• I don’t see what the GMD list or the British Rail locomotive have to do with this article.

  Seems they have the same arrangement of trucks and axles, but I don’t think that’s particularly relevant especially since the FL9 has an unpowered axle and that British Rail locomotive has all powered axles. Removed it from the see also. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove P32, as it’s already linked in the article.

  I actually added that back in 2021 when it wasn’t mentioned in the article. Removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Might be worth linking to the DM30AC in the article (when the failed FL9AC rebuilds are discussed), in which case this section could be done away with entirely. (The EMD list isn’t worth having a section all to itself.)

  I have an issue here where sources disagree. The Classic Trains Magazine article dismisses the FL9AC rebuilds as a failure, while Diesels to Park Avenue calls them a success (on LIRR at least) and a direct inspiration for the DM30AC order (they just write “the order of dual-mode locomotives from General Motors which are due in 1998” but it’s obvious what they are referring to). That source also mentions that gaps in the third rail would cause the onboard computer systems to shut off and then restart. Working on how to incorporate the DM30AC into the prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Citation numbers are from this version.

• Add ISSN for print Trains articles
• The article is currently in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, so something needs fixed.
• Move the Commonscat (and the useless portal link) down to External links
• Make date styles consistent
• Citations 50, 52, 54, 55, and 57 need cleanup and/or are missing parameters
• I’d recommend archiving all the listings on the sites of current owners, as those are liable to change.