Train Trivia 12/20/05 (ANSWERED)

[Anonymous]

Now for the question.

What is the average age of Union Pacific's freight locomotives?

[Anonymous]

No way, José.

Now, I'll say along the lines of 12 years.

Matt

[Texas Zepher]

According to my last stock holders prospectus - 14.7 years.

Oh yeah, if you could delete the old ones I would say no. But since they seem to hang around forever, it might as well be one thread.

[Train 284]

Would'nt hurt!

[trainboyH16-44]

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!
And sorry about not getting it yesterday, there were major computer issues on my end, but that's because my ocmputer has less RAM than a medium sized boulder carefully covered in tinfoil.

[Anonymous]

Well, the 'poll results make it easy to choose ay? keep it one i think....... just keep modifying it. was this your idea?

[james saunders]

i would say roughly 14.7 years.... and keep it as one

[1shado1]

If you mean one long thread like the coffee shop, I say no. I like the trivia questions/polls, but if it was one long thread it would be more difficult to locate the new question in the thread everyday. Just my opinion.

Jeff

[Anonymous]

Well, trainboy let me know if you want to try again sometime.

I can certainly see the pros and the cons of makeing the trivia one long thread like the coffee shop, so whatever you guys decide; which apears to be leave it alone.

[Cox 47]

Lots of people seem to enjoy....Cox 47

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dannydd

Well, the 'poll results make it easy to choose ay? keep it one i think....... just keep modifying it. was this your idea?

Big Boy 4005 suggested making it like the coffee shop. I have also been asked to "reveal my source" that I plan to do.

[rrgrassi]

Hmmm I think the average is more than 14.7 years, since the 844 was never retired.

[Anonymous]

14.7 sounds about right--- that's fine if it's one long thread just be sure to change the date in the title when you post a new trivia question

[howmus]

I think going to one long thread would be a very bad idea..... Just finding today's trivia could mean searching through 2 or so pages to locate. I think it would mean that I wouldn't bother with it anymore. And I kinda like these threads.....[;)]

[Anonymous]

what id do if ize(i was) web master is make a seperate "room" for it and the once a week put up a new thead and lock the "room" but not the thread.
but im just a redneck goth combo that likes to listen to rockabilly and the doors, what duz my imput mater

[Anonymous]

13.56 years. That would be 13.7 not 14.7. This is according to Union Pacific's official roster. You can find it at their website.

I will leave this as it is and post a new thread each time. I have decided to try an ongoing thread on the Trains side. I have also decided to only post 5 days a week (shortage of time not materials).

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

13.56 years. This is according to Union Pacific's official roster. You can find it at their website.

I figured it wouldn't be the same since the Prospectus is issued in May. An interesting side note. Checking the web site and comparing to the prospectus this means that they have added 151 new locomotives this year.

QUOTE: rrgrassi Posted: Today, 15:00:20
Hmmm I think the average is more than 14.7 years, since the 844 was never retired.

Yeah but, statistically 1 locomotive out of 7600 is insignificant. I don't even think it would make but a tiny difference in the standard deviation.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

13.56 years. That would be 13.7 not 14.7. This is according to Union Pacific's official roster. You can find it at their website.

I will leave this as it is and post a new thread each time. I have decided to try an ongoing thread on the Trains side. I have also decided to only post 5 days a week (shortage of time not materials).

Actually, it would be 13.6, not 13.7 or 14.7. Nor 12, which was my guess. But a year and a half difference wasn't sooooo bad.

Matt

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uspscsx
Actually, it would be 13.6, not 13.7 or 14.7. Nor 12, which was my guess. But a year and a half difference wasn't sooooo bad.

No that was an excellent guess. Much closer than I would have been if I hadn't had a reference.