Talk:GE Evolution Series

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

Please cite sources![edit]

People are constantly updating the information about locomotive orders. I'm glad this is being kept up to date, but Wikipedia really needs the source for your information to be included. Could you include that? Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSX ES60AC's[edit]

CSX is now upgrading their AC6000CW's to ES60AC's. The AC6000CW's are getting upgraded with new GEVO engines and new Nathan K5HLL's. http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=948818

Mistyben (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture you cite is already a reference in the article GE AC6000CW. However, I hadn't heard that any units other than CSX #628 had the GEVO refit. Do you know if other refits are planned? And if so, is there a source we can cite for this information? n2xjk (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few other locomotives are getting the same thing. CSX #656 was seen leaving Louisville, KY with a GEVO engine and a standard Nathan K5HL that's found on every ES44 locomotive.

Mistyben (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The re-engined CSX AC6000CW's are not and should not be considered "ES60AC", they still have the older computer and control systems systems, and lack the Evolution Series Air-Air/Air-Water aftercooler.

--Chesapeake (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khazak Export[edit]

The article claims the Khazak order in September 06 was the first export to a company outside North America - yet the paragraph above clearly states that China Railways ordered theirs in October 05, and it's possible the Australian units were ordered before (no date is given on the order for those). Unless I'm missing something here, should that be removed? --Danny252 (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil's ES58ACi?[edit]

I wonder why that's not mentioned on the page yet? Fan Railer (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have references for this locomotive? –BMRR (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on GE Evolution Series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on GE Evolution Series. 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) 20:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]



AC/DC[edit]

I think think this page is mistaken about the designation. Only the A and D signify AC and DC, the C stands for three axle trucks. GE has always specified the number of axles in the model name, why would this be any different? They don't need to write out AC and DC when ES44A and ES44D would work just as well. Why would you make the version with 4 motors the "C4" when C could mean either AC or DC? You would make it the A4 if the letter stood for the current type. It doesn't. "C4" means 3 axles per truck, 4 traction motors. If "C" means 3 axle trucks in this case, why would it not mean the same thing in the regular designation? I think people are confused by the fact that they used "AC" as a prefix on the AC4400CW (note that even that designation includes the number of axles in it. EVERY GE locomotive that I am aware of specifies the axle count in the name, and I don't see why this should be different.


64.223.161.223 (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top Speed in Service[edit]

I was considering making this before an edit war took place, but hindsight is 2020. From my perspective, the version that Nyc5475 put up (and that Trainsandotherthings keeps reverting) is probably the best we're going to get. The sources cited are high quality, and yeah they don't say word for word "the fastest diesel freight locomotive in history", but they back up that claim. Similar style claims can be seen on other Wikipedia pages (like the Acela, see "sets were the fastest in the Americas; reaching 150 mph") without and editor going full power trip and saying "NO NO NO NO NO!!!!"

Now we can of course debate whether this 118mph figure should be considered as in service, but at the same time the difference between "Service: 118mph" and "Accidental/Crash/Ruh roh raggy: 118mph" is not going to mean a whole lot to the reader. At the end of the day, even though it was unintentional, an in service locomotive was recorded reaching 118mph, which fits the definition. Piemadd (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can throw out lies about me "power tripping" all you want, it's still original research. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't original research, the sources cited back up the claim. Piemadd (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not back up the claim, "fastest diesel freight locomotive in history", and you would understand that if you knew Wikipedia's policies on original research. You cannot take multiple sources and combine them to draw a conclusion not stated by any of them (and don't lie to me and say the Trains Magazine source states as much, because I've read it and it does not). That is original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am mistake, you're right. But at the same time, why were you removing the 118mph claim, even when it had a reliable source? Piemadd (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is not fair to say that this is a speed reached in "operational service". Nobody is running ES44s at 118 miles per hour, and the train only achieved that speed because it was going downhill uncontrolled with a full train loaded with iron ore behind it. It wouldn't achieve that speed solely under its own power. Would you say a biplane's max speed is 500 mph because it could achieve that speed in an uncontrolled dive? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key point here is that it reached 118 MPH (maybe) in an uncontrolled state. We could do some fancy calculations to determine the terminal velocity of a locomotive if it drove off a cliff and it wouldn't prove much. What's relevant to a locomotive is its design and operating speed when in controlled operation. Speed records require controlled conditions; no authority will certify a speed record for a situation like this one. Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess great minds think alike...
I agree, it's not a successful speed record if the train derailed at the end. If someone drove their car off a cliff, perhaps that vehicle would exceed the maximum design speed, at least if it's given enough time to reach terminal velocity. But if the vehicle ends up becoming a crumpled pile of unusable metal at the end, that doesn't count. Similarly, for the 118 mph top speed to count, the locomotive would need to (1) have operated under its own power, without any cargo; (2) had an operator at the controls; and most importantly (3) not derailed at the end. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A key point here is that the train achieved 118 mph while it was still on the rails. This is completely different from a case whereby a car is falling off of a cliff unsupported by solid ground.
Furthermore, the locomotives were indeed in service at the time as they were powering OUTSI-25, a scheduled train.
In sum, the train was not taken out of service at the time of attaining 118 mph, GE Evolution Series locomotives were pulling it, and it was still on the rails.
Therefore, the maximum recorded in-service speed of a GE Evolution Series locomotive is indeed 118 mph. Nyc5475 (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're edit-warring and you should revert yourself. Mackensen (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point was not addressed, save a whataboutism. Nyc5475 (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple editors have explained to you why this is not appropriate for the article. Meanwhile, you have blown right past WP:3RR with 4 reverts. You can either self-revert, or I will be taking you to WP:AN3. I suggest you self-revert so that isn't necessary. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reverted the paragraph about the speed record. I'll concede that it's not necessary.
But to dismiss the 118 mph speed because it was a runaway is premature at best, especially when the points I made at 01:31, 31 March 2023 were not addressed at all. Nyc5475 (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not premature. These trains were never designed to go that quickly, nor were they otherwise intended to. Not by the train's crew, not by the train's operators, and not by the train's designers or manufacturers. Like Mackensen said above, runaways are not controlled conditions, so the 118 mph record should not be considered here. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 13:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GE Evolution Series are not trains. They are locomotives. Nyc5475 (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point still stands. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely different from a case whereby a car is falling off of a cliff unsupported by solid ground. - The fact that the train was on the rails when it reached that speed isn't relevant, because it ended up derailing. It had to be taken out of service after derailing. I would not consider it to have reached 118 mph in service unless the train was successfully able to complete its trip after reaching that speed. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mallard had to be taken out of service after its main driver bearing melted, yet it is still credited as the fastest steam engine.
"I would not consider it to have reached 118 mph in service unless the train was successfully able to complete its trip after reaching that speed."
But it literally did reach 118 mph while it was in service. Nyc5475 (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty clearly entering WP:IDHT territory. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lets Keep it Original Owners[edit]

Lets keep "All" locomotive pages as Original Owners. Not current Operators. CPKC needs to be separated again.

Eric Erie Ericerie (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ET23DCM; SD40-2 GEVO-6 repower.[edit]

CSX with Wabtec recently started to rebuild a handful of SD40-2 locomotives with a 6 cylinder GEVO engine, classed officially by Wabtec as the ET23DCM and classed by CSX as the SD23T4. Considering that the rebuild locomotive utilizes a GEVO engine, would it be worth it to add to this page? I must also mention that the ET23DCM is explained on the page for the EMD SD40-2.


Please be patient with me as well. I am not yet highly experienced with making bigger edits like this. The Tree Demoknight (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of Wabtec's (GE) Evolution Series offering, and so it should be included here. I see it is also included under the SD40-2 page as a rebuild, ideally that should direct to this page. Mtnclimberjoe (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GE_Evolution_Series&oldid=1212484253"