Vote for your favorite image featuring "decrepit diesels!" The poll is open through July 23.
http://trn.trains.com/photos-videos/trackside/2017/07/vol-308-decrepit-diesels
Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine
Interesting that two submitters found the same locomotive...
And I've finally found an image of an IC/ICG Paducah rebuild with the "frog eyes" headlights - or the remnants thereof...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68Interesting that two submitters found the same locomotive...
and the interveining years didn't enhance it's appearance one way or the other!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
And that it is so far removed from being 'decrepit' -- the paint is good, panels straight -- it just has goopy white deposits on it. Much of the power I see on NS or BNSF in Memphis is technically in more-worn-down shape than this...
Pictures of those are rare? There were scads of them around on Mid-South in Shreveport in the mid-Nineties, the last place I could park and listen to the music of five idling 567s at the same time. Many, perhaps all of these had those distinctive frogeye lights. What makes pictures of them hard to find?
What a great selection of geriatric growlers. Making a decision wasn't easy...and I think it's safe to say that in its own way, each of them is a winner.
RME Many, perhaps all of these had those distinctive frogeye lights. What makes pictures of them hard to find?
That brutal "improvement" shattered the glass in all lenses pointed at them?
(I worry about that when I shoot the Talgo 8 sets.)
tree68 Interesting that two submitters found the same locomotive...
Two people shot the same locomotive. Twice (the CNW F7 and the Fort Smith GP16). What are the odds...?
NorthWestThat brutal "improvement" shattered the glass in all lenses pointed at them?
I'm actually one of the few who liked those things. Railroading's answer to the Porsche 928! (Of course those are funny-looking too -- but oh brother! what a joy it is to really SEE where you are going at night!)
tree68 Interesting that two submitters found the same locomotive... And I've finally found an image of an IC/ICG Paducah rebuild with the "frog eyes" headlights - or the remnants thereof...
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I wonder if the results would have been better if the category was "Decrepit diesels still in use"?
Surprised no one submitted this one
Murphy Siding I wonder if the results would have been better if the category was "Decrepit diesels still in use"?
Second!
Well, Since the time is about to run out on this Thread (07/23?) I am going to put in a vote for my personal favorite one. Unfortunately, it was an 'Orphan'.
The GM&O RR's # 1900, an Ingalls Shipbuiilding 4-S, built in Pascagoula, Ms.
Photo linked here @ http://www.railpictures.net/photo/612180/#remarks
After the War (WWII) Ingalls built the 4-S @ 1650 HP (Eng: Superior Diesel-Marine type- ). It was to be a demo for Ingall's ideas of what was needed by the railroad industry ( a whole family of power- something similar to EMD's F-3 multi- unit engine sets?).
It did a tour around the country (C&O and Southern, were two, I remembered). Unfortunately, it was not welcomed with open arms, (in a time of EMD rising, and Baldwin,ALCO and others?). It was eventually offered to the GM&O, and sold for less than $150K. It was based out of the Shops at Jackson, Tn, and ran South, mainly into Mississipp and to Mobile,Al. I used to see it regularly, working in the small yard at Corinth,Ms. I was told that the railroad employees considered it to be a 'Shop Pet' at Jackson. It was said tio be a very tough engine. In fact, it was once derailed and rolled over, in the 1960's. Repaired, it was put back into service. I think it was finally traded to EMD, and scrapped in '67(?) @ Pielet in Chicago(?).
zardozPerhaps if they had chosen to include my photo there would have been a little more variety.
Perhaps. But you sent multiple images, and the rules specifically state to send only one.
Brian Schmidt zardoz Perhaps if they had chosen to include my photo there would have been a little more variety. Perhaps. But you sent multiple images, and the rules specifically state to send only one.
zardoz Perhaps if they had chosen to include my photo there would have been a little more variety.
samfp1943The GM&O RR's # 1900, an Ingalls Shipbuiilding S-4...
S4 is an Alco. The Ingalls was a 4-S.
Even in 1966 that thing wasn't really decrepit-looking. For GM&O diesel desuetude you wanted these:
(Adding insult to injury, just a couple of tracks over were the two Baldwin passenger units, just as clean and dapper as could be.)
zardozActually I sent in one and my wife sent in one, although I'll admit that she used my email account because it was up and we were too lazy to switch to her account. Our error.
Your error was not submitting a photo of CNW 401 or the PREX 1612!
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zardoz Brian Schmidt zardoz Perhaps if they had chosen to include my photo there would have been a little more variety. Perhaps. But you sent multiple images, and the rules specifically state to send only one. Actually I sent in one and my wife sent in one, although I'll admit that she used my email account because it was up and we were too lazy to switch to her account. Our error.
Actually I sent in one and my wife sent in one, although I'll admit that she used my email account because it was up and we were too lazy to switch to her account. Our error.
Mathematical irony squared? You were disqualified for submitting 2 entries. 2 entries accepted were of the same locomotive by different photographers. That happened twice. I wonder if it’s possible to just send back a reply to someone who submitted 2? How ‘bout “Hey pal- we see you submitted 2 photos. How's about you re-read the rules, pick up the pace and resubmit ONE photo. Thank you and have a nice day.” (Or something like that )( )
Regardless of the submitter, I would have expected the screener to only permit one version of a submitted engine.
BaltACDRegardless of the submitter, I would have expected the screener to only permit one version of a submitted engine.
Not at all! (At least not without revising the stated rules to say that 'first person posting a similar image is the only one credited' even if the later person's image is objectively better in some way... and I don't think that rule would 'wash')
Now, if the images were displayed as they were received, and the screener could say 'your submission is up already', the situation might be different. But even there, you'd want some sort of grievance or appeal procedure about why the new image is different enough to receive its own spot in the voting. And that turns into its own set of cans of worms.
The striking thing in this case is how very similar the two chosen images (of the Florida locomotive) were. And how dramatically small the voting percentage for each picture was ... which tells me that perhaps voters 'split down the middle' of which the "better" one was, leaving other ones to rank higher.
(I have already expressed my opinion that encrustation from birds or lime or whatever doesn't make that particular locomotive 'decrepit', and it would appear even from the aggregate voting that many people who vote in these things concur.)
RME BaltACD Regardless of the submitter, I would have expected the screener to only permit one version of a submitted engine. Not at all! (At least not without revising the stated rules to say that 'first person posting a similar image is the only one credited' even if the later person's image is objectively better in some way... and I don't think that rule would 'wash') Now, if the images were displayed as they were received, and the screener could say 'your submission is up already', the situation might be different. But even there, you'd want some sort of grievance or appeal procedure about why the new image is different enough to receive its own spot in the voting. And that turns into its own set of cans of worms.
BaltACD Regardless of the submitter, I would have expected the screener to only permit one version of a submitted engine.
Who's to say that they didn't get 15 submittals for those 2 locomotives and decided to publish the 2 best ones? My own opinion: 1) Doubling up on 2 of the engines meant we lost out on seeing two other entries. 2) A locomotive in the process of being scrapped doesn’t seem to be within the realm of what I’d expect decrepit locomotives to be about. To me that’s like photos of dead people. Save that for the title “Decomposing diesels”.
Murphy,
+1
Murphy Siding2) A locomotive in the process of being scrapped doesn’t seem to be within the realm of what I’d expect decrepit locomotives to be about.
Ditto - but in Trains' defense, they may not have considered all the possibilities (and any of us might have handled it exactly the same). Hindsight is usually 20-20.
I rather considered the topic to mean a beat-up locomotive still earning it's keep despite it's sorry condition.
Murphy Siding zardoz Brian Schmidt zardoz Perhaps if they had chosen to include my photo there would have been a little more variety. Perhaps. But you sent multiple images, and the rules specifically state to send only one. Actually I sent in one and my wife sent in one, although I'll admit that she used my email account because it was up and we were too lazy to switch to her account. Our error. Mathematical irony squared? You were disqualified for submitting 2 entries. 2 entries accepted were of the same locomotive by different photographers. That happened twice. I wonder if it’s possible to just send back a reply to someone who submitted 2? How ‘bout “Hey pal- we see you submitted 2 photos. How's about you re-read the rules, pick up the pace and resubmit ONE photo. Thank you and have a nice day.” (Or something like that )( )
zugmann zardoz Actually I sent in one and my wife sent in one, although I'll admit that she used my email account because it was up and we were too lazy to switch to her account. Our error. Your error was not submitting a photo of CNW 401 or the PREX 1612!
zardoz Actually I sent in one and my wife sent in one, although I'll admit that she used my email account because it was up and we were too lazy to switch to her account. Our error.
Edited: Maybe these links will work for you. I tried to just post the photo, but I am doing something wrong.
MLS9:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jim53171/35934388831/in/dateposted-public/
CP 1019-B
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jim53171/35677932770/in/dateposted-public/
These are the images my wife and I sent in, but were disqualified.
zardoz These are the images my wife and I sent in, but were disqualified.
You might need to go back behind the curtain and work a couple of knobs; I get the same image (with the B-unit trailing) for both links ...
That CP B-unit was just dirty from the hump retarders at CPR's Alyth Yard in Calgary. Not exactly decrepit, and this many years later that pair of AC4400s probably looks far worse. Not sure what vintage your picture is, but they left CPR's roster quite a long time back.
CP overhauled two B-units to be assigned to the Alyth hump, in company with GP9s. While I believe they initially were working units, later their role was reduced to brake slugs when handling the long cuts.
RME zardoz These are the images my wife and I sent in, but were disqualified. You might need to go back behind the curtain and work a couple of knobs; I get the same image (with the B-unit trailing) for both links ...
Access the thumbnail pictures under the featured picture!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.