i dont have the money for the subscription unfortunately. and i have more bad news. you mentioned it has a picture of CNW 8803. i did a quick search on rrpicturearchives.net, and the results are most saddening
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locoPicture.aspx?id=9032
that's UP 6705. you can tell which UP AC4400CWs are ex CNW by number alone. all 67XX units for one thing. but to figure out a CNW AC4400CW's UP renumber, replace the 88 with a 67 and then add 2 to the last digit. hence CNW 8803 has become UP 6705. and unfortunately repainted. at least it has wings on the nose and a lightning stripe too though. so it still retains some CNW in that stripe. i only wish it also got the flag.
Your friendly neighborhood CNW fan.
Did you get this months Trains magazine? I would guess not since otherwise you would have seen CNW 8803 unpatched in there. It is on page #48. Then on page 63 there is another one. There is still another one on page 72. I would suggest you hurry out to buy the issue before it is all sold out if you really are such a big CNW fan as you claim you are!
Lord Atmo wrote: i dont like those 2.....they dont have spartan cabs. i grew up watching the EMDs and wasnt there to see those final GEs between purchase and buy-out. i caught 8701 idling on a siding in altoona once and it wasnt doing it for the "awesome! i'm looking at a CNW!" feeling or giving me the same feeling i got as a child i apologize. i should have phrase my original post as "i wish the stuff i saw when i was 4 was still around." terribly sorry
i dont like those 2.....they dont have spartan cabs. i grew up watching the EMDs and wasnt there to see those final GEs between purchase and buy-out. i caught 8701 idling on a siding in altoona once and it wasnt doing it for the "awesome! i'm looking at a CNW!" feeling or giving me the same feeling i got as a child
i apologize. i should have phrase my original post as "i wish the stuff i saw when i was 4 was still around." terribly sorry
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
i disagree. and to be honest, i want them patched
for me, CNW died with 8575
Lord Atmo wrote:i miss CNW....i wish there was still true CNW motive power left still in active service
What about the CNW 8646 and CNW 8701? Saw the 8646 a few weeks ago sitting behind the depot at Fremont, NE.
Jeff
i see the picture. and unfortunately that IS a patched AC4400CW. it's still in CNW paint, but with a UP patch, which is another method UP uses to renumber their locomotives. they stick a yellow rectangle over the CNW logo and slap its UP number on that with the usual red UP numbers. then they paint out all other CNW logos and stick UP shields over them. the number boards are swapped out. lastly, the CNW numbers on the long hood are painted over in yellow i can see the red numbers under the cab where the CNW logo is supposed to be
another thing too is how the number boards on the nose are black with white numbers. those are UP boards. CNW's were white with black numbers
spbed wrote: Nope for sure I know the difference between UPRR & CNWRR since I used to give both RRs lots of traffic so you are totally incorrect with your post at least to what I saw If you go to my web site listed in my signature & then go to the Nebraska gallery & look up Gibbon 05/10/05 & look for the pix created on May 14, 2005 10:48:45 AM you will see her in CNWRR colors lead by a UPRR followed by the CNWRR then 2 NSRR locos Also if it means anything to you if you look at my avatar the hat is CNWRR with a "employee owned" patch Lord Atmo wrote:hmmm operation lifesaver? i think you saw UP 6730, ex CNW 8828. it's been patched with UP numbers over the CNW logo
Nope for sure I know the difference between UPRR & CNWRR since I used to give both RRs lots of traffic so you are totally incorrect with your post at least to what I saw
If you go to my web site listed in my signature & then go to the Nebraska gallery & look up Gibbon 05/10/05 & look for the pix created on May 14, 2005 10:48:45 AM you will see her in CNWRR colors lead by a UPRR followed by the CNWRR then 2 NSRR locos
Also if it means anything to you if you look at my avatar the hat is CNWRR with a "employee owned" patch
Lord Atmo wrote:hmmm operation lifesaver? i think you saw UP 6730, ex CNW 8828. it's been patched with UP numbers over the CNW logo
I saw the CNW operation lifesaver loco in Gibbons NE & while I do not know I would suspect it is still running in CNW colors somewhere on the UPRR system. Some months ago in Austin I passed under the former MPRR underpass & on top of me was a lead CNW loco still in CNW colors (about 4 months ago) Since I was driving I could not get a pix or the loco #
Michaelsol makes an excellent point about distorting the past to achieve political goals. It reminds me of Winston Smith slaving away rewriting History at the "Ministry of Truth." How ironic that 60 years ago, Orwell based his future on Stalin's Soviet Union while the FBI was watching Lowenthal as a suspected Soviet agent.
He who controls the past charts the future.
n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: MichaelSol wrote: signal overlap wrote: MichaelSol wrote:most readers and not looking for real-life case histories, they simply want a good story -- and that's all that most historians are capable of writing. With regards "what historians are capable of writing," I could not disagree with you more, Mr. Sol. There are many excellent colleges full of incredibly bright people who are capable of the kind of critical thinking you claim is lacking in "most" history. I think your claim is outlandish and wrong.And what is the basis for your statements?Odd that you would just show up challenging a statement on another thread "2006 - the Year of Re-Regulation of the Railroads?", a thread over a year old, and then come to this thread and pick this statement out of thousands on these forums, just to dissent, without offering any basis....Interesting that your first two posts on Trains forums would be so .... specific ....Michael, remember the last temporary troll "Character"? He's baaaaaccckkkk!Like when you went around as Futermodel? Bert
futuremodal wrote: MichaelSol wrote: signal overlap wrote: MichaelSol wrote:most readers and not looking for real-life case histories, they simply want a good story -- and that's all that most historians are capable of writing. With regards "what historians are capable of writing," I could not disagree with you more, Mr. Sol. There are many excellent colleges full of incredibly bright people who are capable of the kind of critical thinking you claim is lacking in "most" history. I think your claim is outlandish and wrong.And what is the basis for your statements?Odd that you would just show up challenging a statement on another thread "2006 - the Year of Re-Regulation of the Railroads?", a thread over a year old, and then come to this thread and pick this statement out of thousands on these forums, just to dissent, without offering any basis....Interesting that your first two posts on Trains forums would be so .... specific ....Michael, remember the last temporary troll "Character"? He's baaaaaccckkkk!
MichaelSol wrote: signal overlap wrote: MichaelSol wrote:most readers and not looking for real-life case histories, they simply want a good story -- and that's all that most historians are capable of writing. With regards "what historians are capable of writing," I could not disagree with you more, Mr. Sol. There are many excellent colleges full of incredibly bright people who are capable of the kind of critical thinking you claim is lacking in "most" history. I think your claim is outlandish and wrong.And what is the basis for your statements?Odd that you would just show up challenging a statement on another thread "2006 - the Year of Re-Regulation of the Railroads?", a thread over a year old, and then come to this thread and pick this statement out of thousands on these forums, just to dissent, without offering any basis....Interesting that your first two posts on Trains forums would be so .... specific ....
signal overlap wrote: MichaelSol wrote:most readers and not looking for real-life case histories, they simply want a good story -- and that's all that most historians are capable of writing. With regards "what historians are capable of writing," I could not disagree with you more, Mr. Sol. There are many excellent colleges full of incredibly bright people who are capable of the kind of critical thinking you claim is lacking in "most" history. I think your claim is outlandish and wrong.
MichaelSol wrote:most readers and not looking for real-life case histories, they simply want a good story -- and that's all that most historians are capable of writing.
most readers and not looking for real-life case histories, they simply want a good story -- and that's all that most historians are capable of writing.
With regards "what historians are capable of writing," I could not disagree with you more, Mr. Sol. There are many excellent colleges full of incredibly bright people who are capable of the kind of critical thinking you claim is lacking in "most" history. I think your claim is outlandish and wrong.
And what is the basis for your statements?
Odd that you would just show up challenging a statement on another thread "2006 - the Year of Re-Regulation of the Railroads?", a thread over a year old, and then come to this thread and pick this statement out of thousands on these forums, just to dissent, without offering any basis....
Interesting that your first two posts on Trains forums would be so .... specific ....
Michael, remember the last temporary troll "Character"? He's baaaaaccckkkk!
Like when you went around as Futermodel?
Bert
You're clueless as usual. It is likely that it's all the same person - "Character", "Futermodel", "signal overlap" etc.- one of the Ilk Trolls trying to bypass Bergie's oversight. Also, probably the same person who has written letters to the editor of certain Montana newspapers under my forum name "Futuremodal".
An "expensive model collector"
MichaelSol wrote: most readers and not looking for real-life case histories, they simply want a good story -- and that's all that most historians are capable of writing.
So what made the C&NW any different in the late 70's/early 80's from BN in the early 70's just after the merger?C&NW didn't have the resources to extend into the basin and upgrade the 'cowboy line' as BN didn't have the resources to upgrade the CB&Q lines and build into the basin AND be able to combine facilities,upgrade equipment,upgrade track,and maintain operations at the same time.C&NW could have divested itself of a lot of property that was just a drain on it's capital and then could have financed it's coal project.Forget gobbling up it's neighbors and concentrate on where the money really was.
Milwaukee Road could have done a lot better as a Chicago to Tacoma/Seattle railroad divested of the midwest lines.
The Hill Lines would have been better off as a Great Northern operating on Hill's philosiphy of growing the region instead of just the railroad AND create management from the inside rather than from without.
And who really needed the Rock Island?Just another bankrupt midwestern granger crying for taxpayer dollars,crippled by a government agency who(like a lot of railroad execs of the 80's and 90's)had no idea what railroading was all about or it's importance to the national economy.
Have a good one.
Bill B
futuremodal wrote: I still think CNW and Milwaukee merge, and we end up with the "Milwaukee & Northwestern".I like how that name just rolls off the tongue......
I still think CNW and Milwaukee merge, and we end up with the "Milwaukee & Northwestern".
I like how that name just rolls off the tongue......
Indeed, it DOES have a nice ring to it.
erikem wrote: futuremodal wrote: Makes sense. Railroad-wise, GN needed the CB&Q more than it needed NP. So if NP the railroad loses it's non rail assets, what would GN want with it? (BTW - wasn't that the point I made a while back that raised the ire of BN fans? JJ Hill only wanted NP for the land grant acreage, and that acreage ended up saving Hill's hide!)Perhaps the NP may have ended up divvied up - GN gets the Sandpoint-Spokane trackage, Milwaukee gets the St. Regis-Lombard trackage, UP gets the Stampede Pass line Auburn to Pasco - something like that. The rest is branchlined or embargoed.You forgot NP's biggest asset ca 1970 - Colstrip. NP was running coal trains in 1969, by 1971 there were two active mines on the Colstrip branch and the Sarpy Creek line was opened up ca 1973.
futuremodal wrote: Makes sense. Railroad-wise, GN needed the CB&Q more than it needed NP. So if NP the railroad loses it's non rail assets, what would GN want with it? (BTW - wasn't that the point I made a while back that raised the ire of BN fans? JJ Hill only wanted NP for the land grant acreage, and that acreage ended up saving Hill's hide!)Perhaps the NP may have ended up divvied up - GN gets the Sandpoint-Spokane trackage, Milwaukee gets the St. Regis-Lombard trackage, UP gets the Stampede Pass line Auburn to Pasco - something like that. The rest is branchlined or embargoed.
Makes sense. Railroad-wise, GN needed the CB&Q more than it needed NP. So if NP the railroad loses it's non rail assets, what would GN want with it? (BTW - wasn't that the point I made a while back that raised the ire of BN fans? JJ Hill only wanted NP for the land grant acreage, and that acreage ended up saving Hill's hide!)
Perhaps the NP may have ended up divvied up - GN gets the Sandpoint-Spokane trackage, Milwaukee gets the St. Regis-Lombard trackage, UP gets the Stampede Pass line Auburn to Pasco - something like that. The rest is branchlined or embargoed.
You forgot NP's biggest asset ca 1970 - Colstrip. NP was running coal trains in 1969, by 1971 there were two active mines on the Colstrip branch and the Sarpy Creek line was opened up ca 1973.
So it's kept as a branch from Colstrip to Billings by GN or CB&Q. Like I said, I believe the "usable" parts of the NP would have been doled out, and the rest scrapped west of Terry MT. East if Terry would probably have been "DM&E'd".
futuremodal wrote:Makes sense. Railroad-wise, GN needed the CB&Q more than it needed NP. So if NP the railroad loses it's non rail assets, what would GN want with it? (BTW - wasn't that the point I made a while back that raised the ire of BN fans? JJ Hill only wanted NP for the land grant acreage, and that acreage ended up saving Hill's hide!)Perhaps the NP may have ended up divvied up - GN gets the Sandpoint-Spokane trackage, Milwaukee gets the St. Regis-Lombard trackage, UP gets the Stampede Pass line Auburn to Pasco - something like that. The rest is branchlined or embargoed.
Or, one could have ended up with:
1. GN/CBQ
2. MILW lite (dump the branches and go Chicago PNW).
3 UP plus MILW O -C route.
4. CNW - NP
Four lines to the PNW...a couple too many in my estimation for the 70's, 80's and 90's. Except CNW-NP could have used the proceeds from the natural resources to upgrade the Cowboy line to Powder River and hauled all that coal to Chicago itself, bypassing Uncle Pete. But then again, would the trade of actual natural resources for the infrastructure to HAUL natural resources been a sound tradeoff?
ed
Kevin C. Smith wrote: Could not the two "odd men out" have created a third northern tier trancontinental-the Chicago & North Western Pacific?
Could not the two "odd men out" have created a third northern tier trancontinental-the Chicago & North Western Pacific?
Can't imagine the GN/CB&Q letting the NP go but still, a fun idea. "North Coast 400" sounds nice...
Beats the ill fated "North Coast Hiawatha"........
MP173 wrote: Dave:Quite a thought process of "what ifs". I cannot really comment too much about the PNW, being a Hoosier, but:1. What was the big attraction of the Portland market? I have no idea of the market.
Dave:Quite a thought process of "what ifs". I cannot really comment too much about the PNW, being a Hoosier, but:
1. What was the big attraction of the Portland market? I have no idea of the market.
Portland was and is the biggest export market for US bulk commodities like grain. Needless to say, having access to Portland paid dividends for those PNW railroads running grain trains - UP, GN, and NP all had Portland access, Milwaukee did not. That left Milwaukee's grain trains to ply at the smaller Puget Sound grain ports, Gray's Harbor, or Longview. Which is why getting access to Portland as a condition of the BN merger (albeit the long and steeper way around via a Cascades mountain pass, not via the Columbia Gorge) was so coveted by Milwaukee.
I still say they should have held out for more direct Portland access via the SP&S line through the Gorge as a condition of the BN merger, but that debate has done gone. The thing is, this potential trade with UP would have occured prior to the BN merger, and would have allowed Milwaukee a better route to Portland via the gorge than what they ended up with from the BN merger. And if it happened, I believe CNW has to merge with Milwaukee to stay alive.
2. I agree with you regarding the O-C line. I just dont see that it fit in with MILW's overall operations. A deal with UP could have been very healthy for both parties. Your comments regarding opposing the BN merger would have made sense.
And this is where CNW comes into play. UP gets into Chicago, so no need for access via CNW. CNW must then find a merger partner per the loss of UP overhead, and the most likely marriage then is with Milwaukee. Assuming BN never happens (or at least is delayed a few more years), GN probably retries a smaller merger with CB&Q, so what else can CNW do? Ditto for RI.
3. Not sure I will agree with you regarding the impending NP bankruptcy. A look at their financials indicate they had substantial "other income". I dont know if that was from natural resources or from ownership of the Q, but they certainly were not near bankruptcy. From past threads, it does appear they had the worst route to the NW, but one cannot ignore the assets on the balance sheet.
My take on NP is that they go the SP route - create a holding company, divide railroad from non rail assets, then try and jettison the railroad. The question then is, who'd want it?
4. GN would not have made a play for Rock or CNW, instead simply stayed with the Q, since they owned it.
This is intended primarily for Michael Sol:
The author is Shlomo Slonim, the name of the book is: Jerusalem in America's Foreign Policy. The publisher was Klumer Academic Publishers in Germany, and the book was published in 1998, and available at a reasonable price as a paperback. Now it is available from the Netherlands (possibly also Klumer), for USA $311.25 as a hardback only. Dewey No. is 327.7305694
I would point out that if Lowenthal were the kind of person you describe him to be, he would be perfectly capabable of forging the Truman letter that you refer to. He would have taken Truman's signature from some other documents, ditto the White House letterhead, and had his official letter that he used to bamboozle other people.
I assure you Lowenthal had absolutely nothing to do with Truman's decision. My Dad was a close friend of both Adlei Stevenson and Rabbi Stephen S. Wise. He worked hard for Truman's election, against both Dewey and Henry Wallace. I was alive at the time and overhead on lots of these people's discussions. My Dad was President of the United Rumanian Jews of America during WWII, and you can check the Jewish Enclyclopedia of 1944 on this, his name was Dr. Julius I. Klepper
Well, to play the "what ifs" out a bit further...
If the C&NW would be without a western traffic source if the UP switched its freight traffic to the MILW's Omaha-Chicago main (traffic agreement or merger) and
If this threw a monkey wrench into the proposed BN merger and
The NP was either not included in a successful BN or was the neglected stepchild of an unmerged "Hill Lines" association,
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.