wjstix upjake Well I don't want to focus on the toilet issue too much, but I assume F-units, the first true mainline diesels, had one behind the cab or something? Would get kind of tiresome going up and down those step ladders. FT's had a toilet at the rear of the B-unit; they were originally designed to be used in A-B sets. I assume other F units had toilets too. http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/manual/ft-3766.gif upjake For example, in hindsight you look at the early RS-1 which looks like the perfect branchline diesel, and wonder why they didn't make record sales although most of the major roads bought a couple. I guess you can blame the Japanese. When the US became involved in World War 2, the government directed all new RS-1's to go to the military to use in the US and later to be sent around the world. (That's why early Russian diesels looked like Alco's, they copied RS-1's they got during the war.) IIRC the military even bought some (all?) of the RS-1's from the railroads that bought them before the war.
upjake Well I don't want to focus on the toilet issue too much, but I assume F-units, the first true mainline diesels, had one behind the cab or something? Would get kind of tiresome going up and down those step ladders.
Well I don't want to focus on the toilet issue too much, but I assume F-units, the first true mainline diesels, had one behind the cab or something? Would get kind of tiresome going up and down those step ladders.
FT's had a toilet at the rear of the B-unit; they were originally designed to be used in A-B sets. I assume other F units had toilets too.
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/manual/ft-3766.gif
upjake For example, in hindsight you look at the early RS-1 which looks like the perfect branchline diesel, and wonder why they didn't make record sales although most of the major roads bought a couple.
For example, in hindsight you look at the early RS-1 which looks like the perfect branchline diesel, and wonder why they didn't make record sales although most of the major roads bought a couple.
I guess you can blame the Japanese. When the US became involved in World War 2, the government directed all new RS-1's to go to the military to use in the US and later to be sent around the world. (That's why early Russian diesels looked like Alco's, they copied RS-1's they got during the war.) IIRC the military even bought some (all?) of the RS-1's from the railroads that bought them before the war.
I remember seeing a World War 2 documentary some years ago that showed RS-1s (U.S. Army I think) running supplies through today's Tehran, Iran to Russia and thinking how strange to see them in a foreign place outside of the U.S.. Interesting railroad history.
"And of course N&W stuck with steam so late that they skipped F-units completely and dieselized with hood units instead, LOL! "
a lot but not all of it boils down to economics. fuel and water supply had a lot to do with in on some roads while others had a fleet of steam locos that were pretty much close to junk. in that case, the worst diesel was better than what they had.
the N&W as you mentioned and my old alma mater, the IC had fairly well maintained and modernized steam as well as easy access to good supplies of coal. you can't stop technology but would you trade in a car that got 19 mpg for one that got 20 before it was cost effective to do so? especially if it was already paid for and did not need any major work done on it yet?
wjstix I can see 1956 as being a watershed year...at least I'd say it's as good as any. By then many railroads either had completely dieselized, or were well on their way to doing so, but steam was still let's say "not uncommon". By that time it was clear steam was really going to go away, and the increasingly rare steam railroads got more and more attention. It would be interesting to know ( and I imagine the stats are available somewhere ) what was the first year that as many ton-miles were hauled by diesel as by steam?? Of course that stat might be different than the year in which the number of steam and diesel locomotives were the same, since railroads like the Missabe used a few big steam engines to haul very heavy ore trains until mid-1960. 1960 would be a good cut-off year for any regular mainline steam operations. I believe DMIR, CB&W N&W, and CN had all dropped steam by the end of that year. Some small railroads ran steam into the mid-sixties, and got a great deal of coverage in the railfan press, but the number of steam engines left in active service were very small.
I can see 1956 as being a watershed year...at least I'd say it's as good as any. By then many railroads either had completely dieselized, or were well on their way to doing so, but steam was still let's say "not uncommon". By that time it was clear steam was really going to go away, and the increasingly rare steam railroads got more and more attention.
It would be interesting to know ( and I imagine the stats are available somewhere ) what was the first year that as many ton-miles were hauled by diesel as by steam?? Of course that stat might be different than the year in which the number of steam and diesel locomotives were the same, since railroads like the Missabe used a few big steam engines to haul very heavy ore trains until mid-1960.
1960 would be a good cut-off year for any regular mainline steam operations. I believe DMIR, CB&W N&W, and CN had all dropped steam by the end of that year. Some small railroads ran steam into the mid-sixties, and got a great deal of coverage in the railfan press, but the number of steam engines left in active service were very small.
Good point. Some western railroads, like Western Pacific had completely dieselized by 1952, while other California railroads like ATSF and SP were still running steam in regular service.
I have a fine video of Missabe steam taken during the years 1959-60, when the big Yellowstones were running out their last mileage and doing so with a heck of a lot of flair. And of course N&W stuck with steam so late that they skipped F-units completely and dieselized with hood units instead, LOL!
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
markpierce BRAKIE Now if agreeing with a post and presenting evidence is "sitting up a straw man" for a argument then,I fail to understand your logic especially when my reply was to MILW-RODR Sorry, Brakie, but how was I to know you were addressing MILW-RODR? You didn't give a quote or reference, and your message was directly after my post. Let's both have a beer and forget about it. Mark
BRAKIE Now if agreeing with a post and presenting evidence is "sitting up a straw man" for a argument then,I fail to understand your logic especially when my reply was to MILW-RODR
Now if agreeing with a post and presenting evidence is "sitting up a straw man" for a argument then,I fail to understand your logic especially when my reply was to MILW-RODR
Sorry, Brakie, but how was I to know you were addressing MILW-RODR? You didn't give a quote or reference, and your message was directly after my post. Let's both have a beer and forget about it.
Mark
No problems..Instead of beer I'll have coffee..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
markpierce Brakie, please don't set up a strawman. I didn't say all steam locomotive operation lasted only until 1956 for all railroads. I'm quite aware that steam lasted at least into the 1960s in isolated instances. I believe Buffalo Creek and Gauley (spelling) was one. The SP used steam as stand-in power on its narrow gauge line in Owens Valley until its abandonment in 1960, and so on. Mark
Brakie, please don't set up a strawman. I didn't say all steam locomotive operation lasted only until 1956 for all railroads. I'm quite aware that steam lasted at least into the 1960s in isolated instances. I believe Buffalo Creek and Gauley (spelling) was one. The SP used steam as stand-in power on its narrow gauge line in Owens Valley until its abandonment in 1960, and so on.
Now if agreeing with a post and presenting evidence is "sitting up a straw man" for a argument then,I fail to understand your logic especially when my reply was to MILW-RODR when he said:"it's just that I remember reading that some RR's (it may have just been certain lines of a RR too) still ran steam in the very late 50's, like 57-58"..This was said AFTER he quoted my post.
This is the second time you threw a barb my way in this discussion.
Can I beg to differ on that? I'm not trying to cause more trouble or get flack shot at me, it's just that I remember reading that some RR's (it may have just been certain lines of a RR too) still ran steam in the very late 50's, like 57-58.
--------------------------------
Absolutely! All depending on the railroad in question.
Here's some proof.
http://www.rblanchard.com/gallery/nw_steam_bw/nwsteam_index.htm
Some short lines operated steam into the early 60s!
twhite 1956, from what I've observed in my reading, seems to have been a kind of 'bullseye' year for the general demise of mainline steaM.
1956, from what I've observed in my reading, seems to have been a kind of 'bullseye' year for the general demise of mainline steaM.
Except for the 1957-8 recession, the SP would have probably run steam for a couple of more years (through 1958), leastwise that was the plan. No doubt the recession affected other railroads such as the Rio Grande.
Well, if I can step in here, for the railroad that I model--Rio Grande--the last year of active steam operations (standard gauge, understand) was 1956. And though Rio Grande had been retiring steam since right after WWII, even in 1956 there were still quite a few wheel arrangements on the roster--4-8-2, 4-8-4, 4-6-6-4 and 2-8-8-2 to still warrant the fact that steam was somewhat active on the railroad.
Actually, the last steamers to be retired were their venerable 1100 series 2-8-0's, which for years had served the line, first as freight haulers, then branchline locos and switchers. Those chunky little Alco-built steamers (1908, I believe) outlasted all of the Rio Grande's other steamers. The very last revenue train under steam was pulled from Creede to Pueblo by 2-8-0 #1151. When she dropped her fires and went into the ovens at Colorado Fuel And Iron, standard guage steam was dead.
1956, from what I've observed in my reading, seems to have been a kind of 'bullseye' year for the general demise of mainline steam (though some railroads like the N&W and Missabe kept their steamers active for several more years).
jwhitten Do you know anywhere I can find out when (dates) the Pennsy retired what sort of steam?
Do you know anywhere I can find out when (dates) the Pennsy retired what sort of steam?
Sorry, no. In my case, I acquired an out-of-print steam locomotive compendium for $200 which covered "my" railroad only.
Hopefully, someone can provide you a source for this information. It has got to be out there somewhere.
By the way, If not already a member, you should look into the benefits of belonging to "your" historical society.
http://www.prrths.com/
markpiercejwhitten Do you know of any good resources (online hopefully! :) with information about Pennsy steam retirement dates? Pennsy's use of steam locomotives ended in 1957. Since you model 1959, you needn't/shouldn't have any Pennsy steam in operation if concerned about retirement dates. Mark
jwhitten Do you know of any good resources (online hopefully! :) with information about Pennsy steam retirement dates?
Do you know of any good resources (online hopefully! :) with information about Pennsy steam retirement dates?
Pennsy's use of steam locomotives ended in 1957. Since you model 1959, you needn't/shouldn't have any Pennsy steam in operation if concerned about retirement dates.
BRAKIE A layout set in let's say 1953 can not have certain type of diesels like the GP9 and RS11. We need to know what type of steam locomotives was still being used by railroad we are modeling..They may still have 2-8-2s in main line service but,all the 2-8-0s been replaced by GP7s and RS3s by 1953.E7s may be pulling first class trains while what remaining 4-6-2s are pulling second class trains. All yard work is being done by early Alco(S1,S2,S3) ,EMD(NW2,SW7) Baldwin or FM switchers by 1953.. Move the era forward to say '56 and all of the steam locomotives could be gone.. I won't touch the dominant type of locomotive used by the railroad we model...
A layout set in let's say 1953 can not have certain type of diesels like the GP9 and RS11.
We need to know what type of steam locomotives was still being used by railroad we are modeling..They may still have 2-8-2s in main line service but,all the 2-8-0s been replaced by GP7s and RS3s by 1953.E7s may be pulling first class trains while what remaining 4-6-2s are pulling second class trains. All yard work is being done by early Alco(S1,S2,S3) ,EMD(NW2,SW7) Baldwin or FM switchers by 1953..
Move the era forward to say '56 and all of the steam locomotives could be gone..
I won't touch the dominant type of locomotive used by the railroad we model...
Brakie's post also really made me start writing down questions about diesel replacements for steam. My plans so far are in the 70's but I did plan as far back as begining diesels. My RR bought all Alco locomotives, and just concerning 1st gen diesels they bought RS-3 and RSD-5's (1600hp), RS-11 and RSD-12 (1800hp), RS-27 and RSD-15 (2400hp). So what types of steamers would those diesels replace?
I don't have much room so the primary motive power would be RS-3's and RS-11's. If I ever did run a 6 axle it would have to be something smaller like the RSD-5, right now I'm only looking at a 18-20R curve for the helix.
I recall when it was still SOO line in the Quads here,the Nahant to Muscatine turn/transfer/patrol whatever the crew wanted to call it lol had a Milwaukee MP 15 and a SOO GP 7.the MP ran down to Muscatine and the GP would be the leader back.A family friend was a regular engineer on it and said the GP was one for extra power but also for the facilities.They were "emergency use" only in his words.Now with the ICE ( sorry I know DME) we dont have any switchers in Nahant.Just the tired old Geeps still working away.
Another all switcher line we should remember was the DRI&NW.It was a sad day when it was split up between the BN and CP and those switchers left the Quads for good.I often wondered what would have happened at the end of the service life of their units. Would they have gone the hand me down GP route?Dont know if I would have liked Black and white geeps roaming around.
Yes we are on time but this is yesterdays train
wjstix OK, well first I'm not sure how good a representation that list is, as not every railroad owned all of those all at once. (In fact some of the engines you list were only ever owned by the SP.) Plus you're kinda cherry picking one year, move 3 years either direction and many of those engines aren't there...in 1950 many of the diesels wouldn't be there, in 1956 many of the steam engines would be retired or on the verge of retirement.
OK, well first I'm not sure how good a representation that list is, as not every railroad owned all of those all at once. (In fact some of the engines you list were only ever owned by the SP.) Plus you're kinda cherry picking one year, move 3 years either direction and many of those engines aren't there...in 1950 many of the diesels wouldn't be there, in 1956 many of the steam engines would be retired or on the verge of retirement.
The earlier discussion wasn't limited to a specific railroad. My earlier comments were responding to the questionable conclusion that locomotive variety was limited (boring) during the steam/diesel transition period..
I picked the SP in 1953 for an example because that's the period I'm attempting to emulate and because I had substantial information. If the chosen inspirational railroad/period lacks variety, that's the chooser's error if variety is desired. Of course, modelers can always "revise" history and do their own thing.
BRAKIEjwhitten BRAKIE Modeling a prototype railroad set in the transistion era is hard to do if its modeled correctly.. What makes you say that? Why is modeling a prototype set in the transition era hard to do correctly?? Well,anybody can run steam and diesel locomotives together under the transition flag and be happy with no worries or care. Nothing wrong with that.. However,for the more serious inclined modeler there are disciplines to be learned and followed. A layout set in let's say 1953 can not have certain type of diesels like the GP9 and RS11. We need to know what type of steam locomotives was still being used by railroad we are modeling..They may still have 2-8-2s in main line service but,all the 2-8-0s been replaced by GP7s and RS3s by 1953.E7s may be pulling first class trains while what remaining 4-6-2s are pulling second class trains. All yard work is being done by early Alco(S1,S2,S3) ,EMD(NW2,SW7) Baldwin or FM switchers by 1953.. Move the era forward to say '56 and all of the steam locomotives could be gone.. I won't touch the dominant type of locomotive used by the railroad we model...
jwhitten BRAKIE Modeling a prototype railroad set in the transistion era is hard to do if its modeled correctly.. What makes you say that? Why is modeling a prototype set in the transition era hard to do correctly??
BRAKIE Modeling a prototype railroad set in the transistion era is hard to do if its modeled correctly..
Modeling a prototype railroad set in the transistion era is hard to do if its modeled correctly..
What makes you say that? Why is modeling a prototype set in the transition era hard to do correctly??
Well,anybody can run steam and diesel locomotives together under the transition flag and be happy with no worries or care. Nothing wrong with that..
However,for the more serious inclined modeler there are disciplines to be learned and followed.
OK, well first I'm not sure how good a representation that list is, as not every railroad owned all of those all at once. (In fact some of the engines you list were only ever owned by the SP.) Plus you're kinda cherry picking one year, move 3 years either direction and many of those engines aren't there...in 1950 many of the diesels wouldn't be there, in 1956 many of the steam engines would be retired or on the verge of retirement. Also, not all those engines were at the same place at the same time. I don't think a lighly used branch line using an elderly 4-8-0 would also be seeing 4200 class "cab-forwards".
Perhaps, but you could have seen that 4-8-0 at the same engine facility servicing 4-8-8-2's since SP was still using cab-forwards in helper service over Tehachapi.
The only engine in Mark's list that was unique to the SP were the 4-8-8-2's. Other engine types (including 4-8-0's) were used by other railroads (most notably the N&W).
Your original post mentioned the early 50's. 1953 certainly qualifies, while 1956 does not. Even as late as 1953, most divisions of the SP still had steam power in service to one degree or another.
Quite a few of the diesel classes Mark mentioned would have existed on the SP in 1950. The most obvious ones that would be excluded would be the FP7's, H24-66's and the H12-44's. There's probably a couple of others, but those three come readily to mind.
SP held onto a lot of old engines late in the game because it made sense to use fully amortized motive power for light duty service rather than replace them with expensive new diesels. The Friant Branch was using M-6 and M-9 2-6-0's into 1956, 4-8-0 #2914 wasn't deadlined until 1955 and the "San Joaquin Daylight" was 4-8-4 powered north of Bakersfield as late as September, 1956, IIRC.
Andre
Well, if people choose to be bored, I won't stand in their way to boredom.
Stix said:
Most railfans in the fifties would have only a vague notion of what different types of diesels were out there (keep in mind many of the model designations.
---------------------------------------
Thankfully the contemporary modelers/railfans of that era keep up with the types of diesels while the older modelers/railfans "wouldn't waste film" on a diesel since its more like a truck then locomotive.
A GP7 didn't have dynamic brakes where a GP9 did was the common thought by some on spotting a GP7 from a GP9. Of course those that kept informed and modeled contemporary times knew better.
When I join the Columbus Model Railroad Club in '64 as a Jr member 90% of the locomotives used on operation nights was steam..Those of us that owned diesels was called "diesel fans".I never was sure if that meant we should be pitied or looked upon with scorn.
Well,anybody can run steam and diesel locomotives together under the transition flag and be happy with no worries or care.Nothing wrong with that..
markpierce wjstix The forties-fifties were interesting as far as having both steam and diesel, but I can see the point about the time being boring in that you had a limited number of both. By the early fifties most railroads had scrapped a lot of their steam, and were only running a couple of classes of engines. I don't believe you. Here is a list of locomotive types the Pacific Lines portion of the Southern Pacific had in operation in 1953, of which I'm sure to have missed a few, and not counting for various subclasses. Keep in mind this is only one part of one railroad of hundreds in the U.S. at the time. EMD SW1 Alco HH-660 Alco S-1 Baldwin VO-660 Alco S-3 Alco S-2 EMD NW2 Baldwin VO-1000 Baldwin DS-4-4-1000 Baldwin S-12 Alco S-4 F-M H12-44 GE 44-ton EMD TR6 EMD 7R6 cabless EMD SW8 F-M H24-66 Baldwin DRS-6-6-1500 Baldwin DRSB-6-6-1500 cabless Baldwin AS-616 Baldwin ASB-616 cabless GE 70-ton Baldwin DRS-6-4-15 EMD SD7 Alco RSD-5 EMD E7 Alco PB-1 Alco PB-2 EMD E7A Alco PA-1 EMD E2A EMD E8A Alco PA-2 EMD F3A EMD F7A EMD FP7A EMD F3B EMD F7B Various Whitcomb, Plymouth, Davenport, and GE mill and shop locomotives 0-6-0 Baldwin 0-6-0 Lima 0-6-0 SP 0-8-0 SP 2-6-0 Baldwin 2-6-0 Alco 4-6-0 Baldwin 4-6-0 Alco 4-6-0 SP 4-6-2 Baldwin 4-6-2 Alco 4-6-2 Lima 2-8-0 Baldwin 2-8-0 Alco 2-8-0 SP 4-8-0 Schenectady 4-6-2 Alco 2-8-2 Baldwin 2-8-2 Alco 2-10-2 Baldwin 2-8-8-4 Lima 2-6-6-2 Alco 4-8-8-2 Baldwin 4-8-2 Alco 4-8-2 SP 4-8-4 Baldwin 4-8-2 Lima 4-10-2 Alco Are you tired yet? Mark
wjstix The forties-fifties were interesting as far as having both steam and diesel, but I can see the point about the time being boring in that you had a limited number of both. By the early fifties most railroads had scrapped a lot of their steam, and were only running a couple of classes of engines.
The forties-fifties were interesting as far as having both steam and diesel, but I can see the point about the time being boring in that you had a limited number of both. By the early fifties most railroads had scrapped a lot of their steam, and were only running a couple of classes of engines.
I don't believe you. Here is a list of locomotive types the Pacific Lines portion of the Southern Pacific had in operation in 1953, of which I'm sure to have missed a few, and not counting for various subclasses. Keep in mind this is only one part of one railroad of hundreds in the U.S. at the time.
EMD SW1
Alco HH-660
Alco S-1
Baldwin VO-660
Alco S-3
Alco S-2
EMD NW2
Baldwin VO-1000
Baldwin DS-4-4-1000
Baldwin S-12
Alco S-4
F-M H12-44
GE 44-ton
EMD TR6
EMD 7R6 cabless
EMD SW8
F-M H24-66
Baldwin DRS-6-6-1500
Baldwin DRSB-6-6-1500 cabless
Baldwin AS-616
Baldwin ASB-616 cabless
GE 70-ton
Baldwin DRS-6-4-15
EMD SD7
Alco RSD-5
EMD E7
Alco PB-1
Alco PB-2
EMD E7A
Alco PA-1
EMD E2A
EMD E8A
Alco PA-2
EMD F3A
EMD F7A
EMD FP7A
EMD F3B
EMD F7B
Various Whitcomb, Plymouth, Davenport, and GE mill and shop locomotives
0-6-0 Baldwin
0-6-0 Lima
0-6-0 SP
0-8-0 SP
2-6-0 Baldwin
2-6-0 Alco
4-6-0 Baldwin
4-6-0 Alco
4-6-0 SP
4-6-2 Baldwin
4-6-2 Alco
4-6-2 Lima
2-8-0 Baldwin
2-8-0 Alco
2-8-0 SP
4-8-0 Schenectady
2-8-2 Baldwin
2-8-2 Alco
2-10-2 Baldwin
2-8-8-4 Lima
2-6-6-2 Alco
4-8-8-2 Baldwin
4-8-2 Alco
4-8-2 SP
4-8-4 Baldwin
4-8-2 Lima
4-10-2 Alco
Are you tired yet?
Second, railroads had builders build engines to their specifications. It wasn't like diesels where the builders offered different pre-designed models to choose from. So your listing of say an Alco 2-8-2 and a Baldwin 2-8-2 , or an 0-6-0 from three different builders as if they were different engines isn't really making a valid point. If the same railroad bought the engines from those builders, they may all be virtually identical. The railroad decided what the engine would look like, not the manufacturer.
Third, by say 1955, a lot of the steam engines most railroads owned had been cut back as older ones were retired. Many railroads had started buying switchers in the thirties and had eliminated - or were on the verge of eliminating - their steam switchers by then for example.
Lastly, if you read the entire post, you'll note that I didn't say I thought transition era railroading was boring - I said that I could see how someone could feel that way, and that many people at the time felt that way. It's important to understand that many railfans of the time at that time hated diesels. Many went trackside or on pilgrimages to photograph the remaining steam and passed up photographing diesels. Most railfans in the fifties would have only a vague notion of what different types of diesels were out there (keep in mind many of the model designations and names we use didn't come into common usage - or didn't exist - until later). Many folks saw diesels as "all being alike". As steam was cut back to only a few types on a railroad, and then disappeared all together, many railfans (even some prominent photographers) lost interest.
BRAKIEModeling a prototype railroad set in the transistion era is hard to do if its modeled correctly..
Mark,I agree. In the Columbus,Ohio area in the mid 50s there was still steam locomotives to be seen in main line service but,as the weeks and months pass more and more was going to the dead line.
However,If you seen one F7 you seen 'em all.Same for NYC's Baldwin switchers,or C&O's GP9s.Most railfans of that day held nothing but contempt for diesel locomotives since they was "boring" to look at.
Thankfully some railfans decided the early diesels wasn't that bad..I also believe a lot of those was modelers that modeled contemporary times--just like today..
BRAKIE Mark,Actually the so called "transition era" was also boring..You seen basically the same locomotives on every railfan outing..The exciting times was the early 60s with the coming of the second generation.Here was a all new design unlike the common cab units and road switchers seen every day..Even the new yard switchers(SW1000 and SW1500) was a new design plus you had the new Alco Century line plus GE units.
Mark,Actually the so called "transition era" was also boring..You seen basically the same locomotives on every railfan outing..The exciting times was the early 60s with the coming of the second generation.Here was a all new design unlike the common cab units and road switchers seen every day..Even the new yard switchers(SW1000 and SW1500) was a new design plus you had the new Alco Century line plus GE units.
The forties-fifties were interesting as far as having both steam and diesel, but I can see the point about the time being boring in that you had a limited number of both. By the early fifties most railroads had scrapped a lot of their steam, and were only running a couple of classes of engines. At the same time, the only diesels available were "first generation" diesels, which railfans at the time considered quite boring compared to steam. So you might see a train with a 2-8-2 one day, a couple of GP's the next day, a 2-8-2 the day after, more GP's the next day, etc.
Hard now to imagine going trackside to photograph trains and turning your back on an A-B-B-A set of F-units or a set of Baldwin road-switchers on a train because they aren't steam, but a lot of railfan photographers did that back then. Even our common terminology of different models and "phases" didn't come along til the sixties, back the it was just a "1500 HP EMD diesel", not a "GP-7"...bottom line was they were all "look alike" diesels and not worth wasting film on.
You can add the Montour Railroad near Pittsburgh PA to your list as well. The Montour is a neat little railroad that upon upgrading to diesel from steam, ran sw7 / sw9 type switchers. You can read more about it here:
http://www.montourrr.com/roster.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montour_Railroad
Mark said:Thank goodness you didn't bring up the topic of toilets.
--------------------
My 9 1/2 years as a brakeman taught me those stink holes shouldn't be discuss in polite company..
I agree the transition era was the most varied but,still boring except the various NYC unit consist..That could liven the day up..