Jump to content

Talk:EMD SD40-2: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m need better pics~~~~
m Photos in general: added OCS image~~~~
Line 5: Line 5:


the photos (MRL and CSX) are fairly poorly suited to this article as they show nothing of the unique or spotting features of the unit even tho they are fine railfan wedgies. The NS unit is a better descriptive view but a pretty lousy pic. Can't we do better? [[User:KLWhitehead|Ken]] ([[User talk:KLWhitehead|talk]]) 20:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
the photos (MRL and CSX) are fairly poorly suited to this article as they show nothing of the unique or spotting features of the unit even tho they are fine railfan wedgies. The NS unit is a better descriptive view but a pretty lousy pic. Can't we do better? [[User:KLWhitehead|Ken]] ([[User talk:KLWhitehead|talk]]) 20:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

ok, so I added a rear view of OCS RR that shows the porch a bit better.[[User:KLWhitehead|Ken]] ([[User talk:KLWhitehead|talk]]) 18:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


== ALCO to MLW ==
== ALCO to MLW ==

Revision as of 18:12, 2 July 2014

WikiProject iconTrains: Locomotives B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated projects or task forces:
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.
Note icon
This article lacks references.

Added CN Rail as they had 151 SD40-2W (wide Canadian Safety cab denoted by the "W"}. Info from http://cnlines.ca/CNcyclopedia/loco/loco_a.php 74.115.134.20 01:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos in general

the photos (MRL and CSX) are fairly poorly suited to this article as they show nothing of the unique or spotting features of the unit even tho they are fine railfan wedgies. The NS unit is a better descriptive view but a pretty lousy pic. Can't we do better? Ken (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so I added a rear view of OCS RR that shows the porch a bit better.Ken (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ALCO to MLW

Changed ALCO C636 to MLW M636, as the C636 was not avalable at the time SD40-2 production started, C636 production ended in 1969. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesapeake (talkcontribs) 16:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1989

Complete dissoultion of production for the SD40-2 was in 1989 as EFC was the last railroad to purchase the SD40-2. Production could have possibly continued until 1992, but this remains unconfirmed. http://community-2.webtv.net/ajkristopans/EQUIPAMENTOS// — Preceding unsigned comment added by GT42CWR-MP (talkcontribs) 05:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MRL 250 Photo

This article should use another photo other than MRL 250. MRL acquired 250 from BN after it was wrecked on Bozeman Pass on MRL startup day, 10-31-1987. It was rebuilt using the cab from CRIP 392, a GP40. Thus is has a 35 line cab instead of a Dash-2 series cab. Ref: "Montana Rail Link Locomotives and Rolling Stock 2000", Robert DelGrosso and Richard Yaremko, page 30. Steeplecab (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


EMD SD40-3 needs a paragraph

Is it okay to add a paragraph, (with references and links), on the CSX EMD SD40-3? The EMD SD40-3 is a rebuilt EMD SD40-2, with a few external changes, such as two headlights, one on top of the other, in the front center. It's being seen on the railroads by railfans and there are plenty of photographs of it at railroad fan sites, such as Railroad Pictures Archives.Net. I don't want to add a new paragraph on SD40-3, only to have deleted for one reason or another. 74.76.237.85 (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Bennett Turk[reply]

I would say add it it as I don't think it warrants a separate article. Ken (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]