Talk:Bombardier–Alstom HHP-8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources[edit]

This article needs some. I can't find any --Rent A Troop (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

year of construction?[edit]

I just looked for when the HHP-8's were built, but couldnt find it here.. should be added.

Greetings, Mikosch-EN (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit[edit]

This edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HHP-8&diff=580404502&oldid=580394916

  • Traction motors - in the source it doesn't say the motors were Alstom ONIX AC motors (as far as I could see) - it doesn't say anything other than they were the supplier.
  • Re-added "when" and "fact" tags for undated, unreferenced info
  • Changed the speed back to mph as in the source [1] section 4.3.1.4 - the source removed didn't appear to have any information about speed - no page number given either.
  • Re-instated referenced version about low reliability.
  • Information about ACS-64 should be at it;s own page.
  • The previous version claimed (about the HHP) "upon which time they will be returned to Bombardier although there is a possibility of purchase by another commuter rail line with the reference http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/898/720/Amtrak-Siemens-Locomotive-ATK-13-039.pdf - but there is nothing about the HHP in the page. - the sentence doesn't even make any sense - not a Bombardier product ???

Please stop adding reference that fail to verify anything, and please add page numbers when adding references - so that other people can find stuff. Prof.Haddock (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to verify this: with HHP-8s kept as a reserve in the short term until their lease agreement expires from http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/976/814/Amtrak-Five-Year-Financial-Plan-FY2013-2017,0.pdf - if it is in please give a page. Given that the other edits were unreliable I'm not going to assume this is. All I could find was something about early lease buyout (p.17-18), and something about overhauls (p.16) Prof.Haddock (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing your issues:
  • Speed issue was already resolved, and the source was already on the page, albeit in a different section (the specifications table). Since that appeared to be such a large issue, it has been fixed.
  • Traction motors. You MAY not have noticed, but the source provided is not tagged to the "onix motor" phrase (which already has its own citation tag), but to the "Alstom" phrase. Reading is key.
  • Bombardier owning the HHP-8s: I have left that out for now, but should a reliable source other than word from employees and people in the industry become readily available, or, should the locomotives be returned to BBD once retired from Amtrak service, it will be re-added to the page.
  • "Retirement from Amtrak" section received numerous fixes, including replacing "Amtrak's HHP-8's were had low reliability..." with something a little more comprehensible, and adding needed punctuation.
  • I disagree about the need for a "when" or a "fact" tag in regard to the MARC information, but that is debatable.
If there are further issues with the fixes, then by all means, discuss.

Fan Railer (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speed - the source said 125mph - mph is used in the US, and irrespective of that - the figure printed should be the figure given - not a conversion- the source you provided didn't give any speed. (see below)
  • There is no source for the 217km/hr figure you added - if there is please quote it with a page number - your source http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/36/921/2012-Amtrak-Fleet-Strategy-v3.1-%2003-29-12.pdf - there are 82 pages - I've tried looking and using search but I couldn't find either the 201 or 217 km/h figure -please stop re-adding it until you can point to where you got it from.
  • Traction motors - nowhere in the source you gave http://www.alstom.com/Global/US/Resources/Documents/APTA%2011/Amtrak_TLS_June08.pdf - does it say anything about traction motors other than Alstom supplied them - ie the type, model etc is not there
  • You added a "fact" to to rheostatic braking in the infobox (despite the fact you added it yourself to the text) - it's already mentioed in the given source http://www.sonic.net/~mly/Caltrain-Electrification/2000-08-Rolling-Stock-Draft/a5.pdf - second page, first column, under braking system > electric
  • Bombardier lease - according to one of the sources you gave http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/976/814/Amtrak-Five-Year-Financial-Plan-FY2013-2017,0.pdf the locomotives might be bought off lease not returned to lease eg in Early Buyout Equipment Purchase Options on page 18 - that's the opposite of what you wrote ? the five year plan reference :
    • "Fiscal Year 2013-2017 Five-Year Financial Plan" (PDF). Amtrak. 2013-05. Retrieved 2013-11-05. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Unresolved info. :
I've looked and can't find the 217 km/h source in [2] - if it is there please say what page/document.Prof.Haddock (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The speed issue - It becomes more and more apparent that you either don't know how to read, or you refuse to look through the other sources provided, especially AFTER I placed the relevant source in the proper location with my last edit, which you so interestingly "fixed". Try again: [3]. This source is now in TWO places in this article, which should solve the problem.
  • It is now my turn to question why YOU removed a request for citation from the "locomotive brake force" section.
Fan Railer (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well. You added it - [4] so maybe you should know where you got it from? - You gave the source http://www.sonic.net/~mly/Caltrain-Electrification/2000-08-Rolling-Stock-Draft/a5.pdf ?? I can't explain that. Prof.Haddock (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 August 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Bombardier–Alstom HHP-8. Strong arguments in support of the move (consistency being one of our key naming criteria) and the opposition did not base itself on anything in WP:AT. Of those who supported there was a general agreement that Bombardier–Alstom HHP-8 was the best variant. Other proposed titles will be created as redirects. Jenks24 (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


HHP-8 → Bombardier/Alstom HHP-8 – The convention for locomotive articles on Wikipedia is to be named MANUFACTURER MODEL, or sometimes OPERATOR MODEL, depending on which is more contextually appropriate (steam locomotives tended to be so named). Compare EMD AEM-7, Siemens ACS-64, and PRR GG1. For whatever reason this article has always been located at HHP-8, but it's an anomaly that should be corrected. Most reliable sources mention both Bombardier and Alstom as builders, so I think Bombardier/Alstom HHP-8 makes more sense than Bombardier HHP-8. See e.g. Cudahy, Solomon, and Popular Science. I don't see this as a controversial move but the article's been at this location for ten years so I thought some discussion was warranted. Mackensen (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there aren't any other HHP-8's I'd just leave it alone until there is a conflict, especially since the proposed name is rather awkward due to the unit's split lineage.Sturmovik (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a rule we've followed with any other article (compare GG1, AEM-7, and ACS-64). I think we should be consistent in lieu of a formal guideline (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), for example, provides explicitly for the manufacturer name, followed by the designation). Obviously HHP-8 would remain as a redirect. Mackensen (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know a few that don't follow the convention, but I'm not going to name them because you'll probably change those as well! Sometimes its better to make an exception. The full name blows up the title.Sturmovik (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to belabor this, but why is it better to make an exception in this case? The potential title would be 23 characters long, which isn't excessive. It's the same length as, for example, Israel Railways JT 42BW, and that article seems perfectly fine. No policy governs this move, but guidelines, convention, and consistency point in a particular direction. Mackensen (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bombardier–Alstom HHP-8. 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: 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) 05:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amtrak lawsuit.[edit]

https://www.railwayage.com/regulatory/hhp-8-cannibalization-generates-lawsuit/ Can someone put this into the article that the HHP-8s were actually leased to Amtrak and that the leasing company are filing a lawsuit due to finding the HHP-8s stripped for parts? Slender (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This lawsuit complicated. Whomever edits the page needs to have a good understanding of what is going on, not just rehash some industry news blurb.Sturmovik (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPCU testing[edit]

@Sturmovik: While there has been some railfan buzz about converting the HHP-8s to NPCUs, there isn't any evidence that Amtrak has any plans to do so, much less that the recent HHP-8 sighting has anything to do with that. Given the evidence against (nothing in Amtrak's fleet plans, and there's a source in the article indicating that Amtrak has already gotten slapped for removing parts), I'd say this verges on WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Certainly it should not be in the article without a quality source - either from Amtrak, or a reliable industry source like Trains. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Through a FOIA request, I've received some information on the HHP-8 conversion project. Not sure how exactly I can cite this source, but it is straight from Amtrak.
My questions are noted in bold and the answers I received are below.
How many HHP-8s will be converted to control cars?
TBD at this point but up to 13
When will the first HHP-8 control cars enter service?
TBD, still working out the technical. Issues, but ASAP
What routes will they be used on?
TBD, potentially Any route that currently has a cab car
Will they replace existing Metroliner cab cars?
Not at this time. We are looking to supplement the cab car fleet as an interim until the ICTs come online WorldwideRailfan (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As this has come up again let's talk about this video: [5]. It shows an HHP-8 dead-heading. This isn't usable as a source for anything. First of all, per WP:RSPYT, YouTube videos are not generally a reliable source. Second, the video does not show an HHP-8 being used as a cab car. It does not show an HHP-8 being converted to a cab car. It shows a dead-head move. Why and for what purpose? That's what we need a reliable source for. This isn't one. Mackensen (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: While the video may not show anything you mentioned, it does show one thing: the number. Like the F40 NPCUs, this HHP-8 was renumbered to 90691, the 90 prefix being used solely for locomotives that were converted into unpowered driving trailers. Looking on Reddit [6], it also shows the same HHP-8 (before renumbering) without pantographs, meaning that it no longer provides power and is solely for backup moves where a cab car can be used.

I do agree that a credible source is needed, but unfortunately we still have no official source. That is the one thing I'm still hunting for before the info about the NPCU conversion can be added back. Davidng913 (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update - it appears that the HHP-8 has been renumbered to 9750. Davidng913 (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Footage has now emerged on Youtube from two railfans showing AMTK 9750 leading two Amfleets and a Sprinter pushing. I'll provide the links here. www.youtube.com/watch/8O4XC-M8dZs and www.youtube.com/watch/1-CGDWePHRE Slender (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bombardier–Alstom_HHP-8&oldid=1200245682"