What does the 832 look like on the inside? Well the ceiling is falling down and moist from the SC blowing on it ( hanging down from by where the AC vents are) and its black lets call it mold I bet. The floor nasty, the desks on both sides NASTY. The controls, loose and the notches are more like speed bumps not notches. The lights behind the guages are dim . All in all these motors are B unit only in my mind. But still on the point.
Junk em all, Give me good old Cascade green, Or better yet bring back the Rock and I will work for them instead.
Yes we are on time but this is yesterdays train
i find that the BN unitn with noselights looks worse.
Noselights and BN dont mix at all. blugh
Your friendly neighborhood CNW fan.
About a decade ago I had the chance to attend Topeka RR Days. ATSF 844 was pretty new and pulled an excursion train from Topeka to Lawrence. I got some nice shots of this nearly brand-new locomotive. (I thought it ironic that UP 3985 was at RR days along w/ Santa Fe 844). Anyway - about 2 yrs ago, I was at Corwith in Chicago and saw 844 again. All I could say was pitiful. It looked like she'd had a fire so the middle was in bad shape. Where she wasn't scorched, it was painfully apparent that Neil Young was right when he said, "Rust never sleeps." Amazing what 10 yrs or so did to that engine.
Here's a latter day photo.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=129089&nseq=1
CSXFan wrote: I think BNSF #4437 comes pretty close to being the worst looking. http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=195287&nseq=0http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=137633&nseq=1http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=61698&nseq=2At least #832 has some character. #4437 looks just plain disgusting.
I think BNSF #4437 comes pretty close to being the worst looking.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=195287&nseq=0
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=137633&nseq=1
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=61698&nseq=2
At least #832 has some character. #4437 looks just plain disgusting.
There is more than one C44 fading like that. Caught both of these at the Tehachapi Loop.
BNSF 4527
http://neil300.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=450539
BNSF 5387
http://neil300.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=450614
CopCarSS wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote:Chris, did you shoot this with film or digital? I haven't shot film for years but when I was going through 200 to 300 rolls a year I discovered the red hues as captured by Fuji and Kodak were distinctly different -- Fuji's red was more fiery, more vibrant. Pop_Z,It was digital, but it was with my Canon D60, which had a very Provia flavor to it (part of why I really liked that body so much...Provia 100F was my favorite film). All my new stuff on the Pentax has a very different feel to it...still Fuji-ish, but a lot more like Astia 100. It's great for portraits, but post-processing for railroad or landscape stuff takes a little more work to get it to a "look" that I like.
Poppa_Zit wrote:Chris, did you shoot this with film or digital? I haven't shot film for years but when I was going through 200 to 300 rolls a year I discovered the red hues as captured by Fuji and Kodak were distinctly different -- Fuji's red was more fiery, more vibrant.
Pop_Z,
It was digital, but it was with my Canon D60, which had a very Provia flavor to it (part of why I really liked that body so much...Provia 100F was my favorite film). All my new stuff on the Pentax has a very different feel to it...still Fuji-ish, but a lot more like Astia 100. It's great for portraits, but post-processing for railroad or landscape stuff takes a little more work to get it to a "look" that I like.
Thanks. Discovered the difference in reds when we were shooting magazine pages with Kodak graphic arts film -- but the photos were off prints made with Fuji film & paper. Couldn't figure out why a guy's red shirt wasn't reproducing properly.
-ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams
CopCarSS wrote: So I'm curious...Did GE use different paint than EMD did? I was looking through some shots last night, and I came across this Geep 60 that I shot only a few months before the shot of 832:I would have thought that on something like the warbonnet units, the Santa Fe would have spec'd a paint manufacturer that both builders would have used. Were GE and EMD free to use who they wanted as long as the color matched?
So I'm curious...
Did GE use different paint than EMD did? I was looking through some shots last night, and I came across this Geep 60 that I shot only a few months before the shot of 832:
I would have thought that on something like the warbonnet units, the Santa Fe would have spec'd a paint manufacturer that both builders would have used. Were GE and EMD free to use who they wanted as long as the color matched?
Chris, did you shoot this with film or digital? I haven't shot film for years but when I was going through 200 to 300 rolls a year I discovered the red hues as captured by Fuji and Kodak were distinctly different -- Fuji's red was more fiery, more vibrant.
My contribution to the discussion (cannot see loco number):
I seem to recall that BNSF had a lawsuit against Dupont for the crappy quality of their so-called durable paint. I believe the paint was advertised with a 3 or 5 year no fading warranty. (as can be seen on the 4437) Ironically, it seems that the orange paint on the original H1 Dash-9's is still holding up for the most part....which is more than I can say for these H2 disasters! Don't even get me started on the rustbucket "pinkbonnets"!
anb740
Joe H. (Milepost S256.0; NS Griffin District)
Pictures: http://anb740.rrpicturearchives.net
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/anb740
BNSF Warbonnet 542 assembles the Ringling Bros train at Moline Illinois. http://www.pbase.com/trailryder/image/66393040
Heres another sad paint job that I caught in Moline, Illinois last summer moving around the Circus train. You would think BNSF would have put a nicer looking engine in charge of a train that the general public is going to see.
Later Bill
Trainnut484 wrote: sarahd wrote: THE SANTA FE WOULD OF NEVER LET THERE LOCOS LOOK LIKE THAT,WHAT A SHAME FOR SUCH A PROUD HERITAGE. LONG LIVE CHICO!!!The Santa Fe had a color chart to measure when a locomotive had to be repainted. If the fading got pass a certain point, it was sent to the paint booth. Yes, the 832 and 838 would have NEVER got this bad back then.Take care,Russell
sarahd wrote: THE SANTA FE WOULD OF NEVER LET THERE LOCOS LOOK LIKE THAT,WHAT A SHAME FOR SUCH A PROUD HERITAGE. LONG LIVE CHICO!!!
THE SANTA FE WOULD OF NEVER LET THERE LOCOS LOOK LIKE THAT,WHAT A SHAME FOR SUCH A PROUD HERITAGE. LONG LIVE CHICO!!!
The Santa Fe had a color chart to measure when a locomotive had to be repainted. If the fading got pass a certain point, it was sent to the paint booth. Yes, the 832 and 838 would have NEVER got this bad back then.
Take care,
Russell
True,
...Except when they pulled the rustbucket U33C's and U23C's (*8500's and 7500's) out of the stored lines (LUGO-Argentine) to run for a few weeks in the eighties just to prove to the lessor that they were servicable before turning them in to Greyhound Leasing. [the lease was up, they were still crap]....some rusted so badly that you could not read the yellow "Santa Fe" on the long blue hood hood when they wobbled into/out of La Junta on a 304/403 train.
Duct tape does wonders.....
Alec
Ive also shot that 832, gross for sure. BUT, this one here, the 838, seems much worse.
I remembered seeing a very faded SF unit in Galesburg a couple of years back- looked through my pictures hoping it was 832, but no-
Brian (IA) http://blhanel.rrpicturearchives.net.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
CSXFan wrote:I think BNSF #4437 comes pretty close to being the worst looking. http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=195287&nseq=0http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=137633&nseq=1http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=61698&nseq=2 At least #832 has some character. #4437 looks just plain disgusting.
Rotten Pumpkin
CSXFan wrote: I think BNSF #4437 comes pretty close to being the worst looking. At least #832 has some character. #4437 looks just plain disgusting.
I have a couple of photos of Santa Fe GP30 #2742 among my collection. It was in the gold and blue warbonnet scheme. They were taken in Crystal City, MO shortly after the merger. I thought it was a treat to see ATSF in old Frisco territory.
But how that relates to this subject is that this locomotive is so clean and shiny it looked like it just came out of the paint shop, or like a new Athearn model. Yes, long live Chico.
There is one that comes through Flagstaff about every two days that is way way worse, I think it is on the Phoenix run. It has been on fire, the paint, which very little is left is all burned off in the center of the engine which is now a rust color and there is graffiti everywhere on top of that. I will try to get a picture to post.
elrojo
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
CSXfan,
On the last picture of #4437 on the Needles Sub. For a split second it kind of looked like a dirty UP unit. But still WOW !!! What a contrast of #4437 and the other Heritage II paint schemes locos in the consists!
Who did BNSF had painted #4437 ???? Earl Schrieb!?!?!?!?!?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.