Thread: Csxt
View Single Post
Old 10-25-2010, 05:06 PM   #19
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Jones View Post
I agree with what you are saying here. In this case yes the Soo Line is gone, but the reporting marks are valid. And just to stir the pot. While deep down in the paperwork Soo Line #6034 may be owned by CP, there is already a CP SD40-2 #6034 at the same time and in the case of the entire Soo SD60/60M fleet those same numbers are carried by a like number of CP SD40-2's. 2 different locomotives owned by the same railroad, same road number, but different reporting marks.

Bryan Jones
Brooks,KY
So? I don't see how that has anything to do with anything....?
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote